Situated social aspects of everyday life in the built environment by 3XN_GXN

SITUATED SOCIAL ASPECTS of Social Psychology of Everyday Life â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Informing the Design Process by Expanding Theory and Evaluation Methods Related to Social Interactions in Designed Physical Settings by Mille Sylvest

EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SITUATED SOCIAL ASPECTS of

EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

gxn.3xn.com 3xn.com

Social Psychology of Everyday Life â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Informing the Design Process by Expanding Theory and Evaluation Methods Related to Social Interactions in Designed Physical Settings by Mille Sylvest

Preface

This industrial PhD-thesis by Mille Sylvest is produced in cooperation between Roskilde University and GXN, the innovation unit of the architecture company 3XN -within the PhD programme Social Psychology of Everyday Life. As an autonomous piece of work, it is on the one hand engaged in its own research problems, interests, and unique ways of developing knowledge and insight; on the other hand, it contributes to the development of a field of psychological research: the social psychology of everyday life. Research in this PhD programme investigates everyday life of human subjects in their cultural and societal relations. The programme builds on transdisciplinary developments of theory, knowledge and methodology rooted in research problems of social life, and it is distinguished by a problem-orientated approach to social psychology in a broad sense. Mille Sylvestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s field is social psychology with an ecological, environmental and situated practice point of view of architectural design and evaluation from a human perspective. In her thesis, focus is on bringing the human perspective into the architectural design process through an informed collaboration across psychological, sociological, ethnographical and architectural research disciplines and architectural practice. In this way, the dissertation in an innovative and interesting way contributes to cross-disciplinary research regarding the mutuality between humans and our socio-physical environments. Furthermore, the knowledge created is connected to actual architectural practices through the development, application and evaluation of a series of collaborative methods with the aim to increase awareness of the human and social perspectives in architectural design. The empirical part of study encompass three comprehensive case studies of buildings carried out in three different contexts, Nieuwegein City Hall in the Netherlands, Tangen Polytechnic in Norway and Ă&#x2DC;restad High School in Denmark, all designed and built by 3XN. Mille Sylvest takes a multi-methodological approach using building observations, informant observations, field notes, activity mapping, qualitative interviews, photographic and video recordings. The thesis stands out as an important piece of research with significant academic and methodological contributions as well as recommendations that advances the practice of architectural design with a human and social perspective. Hans H. K. SĂ¸nderstrup-Andersen Roskilde University PhD Programme Social Psychology of Everyday Life February 2017

Acknowledgements

Writing a dissertation is by far the most demanding work-related task I have ever set out to accomplish. So many ups and downs have defined this period in my life, that by now, they almost feel innumerable. But after surviving the stressful juggling of PhD life, a large amount of doctor and hospital visits with my then infant son, a huge variety of controversies over different issues related to this project, and what has occasionally felt like an almost schizophrenic work life divided between practice and academia, I am now left with an overwhelming sense of gratitude. Again and again, so many people around me have been incredibly helpful, forbearing and understanding. Writing a dissertation within what is a lesser known field in a Danish context is sometimes a rather frustrating and lonely endeavor. Luckily, I have been able to connect and discuss matters related to the field in general, and my dissertation in particular, with a wide variety of people, both locally and internationally. I would therefore like to thank my colleagues in the Architecture Research Group at Roskilde University, as well as in the Danish Research Network for Architectural Psychology. Also, I would like to thank Ulrich Schramm and the late Wolf Preiser for including me in the international network of building evaluation researchers, IBPE, as well as my colleagues at the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), who have always inspired, listened, and critiqued. A special thank you to Rich Wener for welcoming me as a visiting researcher at NYU in New York City, and for putting me in contact with so many amazing researchers within the field of environmental psychology. One of these researchers is Jen Senick, who has been both incredibly friendly and helpful in sharing her work and great company at conferences as well as in my home here in Copenhagen. So many people and organizations have been invaluable in making this Industrial PhD project possible. A very big thank you to my supervisor Hans H. K. SĂ¸nderstrup-Andersen, who is one of the major reasons that I had the opportunity to embark on a PhD project. I doubted his judgement many times along the way, but now I am so grateful that he believed in my abilities to write (and to finish) a dissertation right from the beginning, even though there were so many bumps along the way.

Thank you also to all the partners at 3XN Architects, especially Kim Herforth Nielsen and Kasper Guldager Jensen, for realizing the value of engaging in a more research-based collaborative practice, and for being brave enough to invite evaluation, constructive critique, and alternative views into your practice. I am very grateful for your courage and I look forward to our continued collaborations. Thank you also to all my colleagues at both Roskilde University and 3XN Architects. A very big thank you to Realdania for funding a large part of this project, and for doing so with a genuine interest in new research findings and methods, and without any restrictions. I am so grateful for the opportunity. I would also like to extend a special thank you to all my informants at Tangen Polytechnic in Norway, Stadshuis Nieuwegein in the Netherlands, and Ørestad High school in Denmark. This dissertation would not have been possible without you. Thank you so much for your time and for all the invaluable comments and insights you have provided on your everyday life in these buildings. Finally, I would like to thank my family for all their help and patience, especially Anni and Bjørn for creating the most wonderful environment for concentrated writing, when I needed to escape all the distractions of regular life. I could not have finished this dissertation on time had it not been for your help. And most importantly, a huge thank you to my husband, Simon and our son, Eddie – who have often had to manage without my physical presence and more often still, without my mental presence, but who have done so with such caring determination to help. Especially Eddie, who despite the tender age of four upon completion, has acted with such understanding and willingness to help throughout the last crazy year of this dissertation, or as it is known at our house, ‘The Book’. This dissertation is dedicated to the two of you; it would never have been possible without your love, help and understanding!

Contents

Preface Acknowledgements Introduction

5 6 13

Part 1: Social Perspectives in the Research Environments Environmental Psychology Ecological Psychology A Situated View on Activity An Extraindividual Perspective on Affordances: Introducing Behavior Settings Organizational Culture as Context

23 28 40 44 48

Part 2: Expanding Building Evaluation Methodology Evaluating the Built Environment Evaluation: Methodologies and Practice Social Perspectives in Building Evaluation

57 58 62

Part 3: Investigation Everyday Social Life in the Built Environment Investigation Methods The Case Studies Case Study 1: Tangen Polytechnic Case Study 2: Stadshuis Nieuwegein Case Study 3: Ă&#x2DC;restad College Procedure and Participants Investigation Methods Knowing What Informants are Talking About Socio-cultural and Spatial Perspectives on Life in the Three Work Environments

71 76 78 84 90 96 97 102 103

Visual Transparency and Cross-spacial Interactions Natural Meeting Points Interactions within Specific Group and Area Different Settings and their Affordances for Sociality Habits and Social Use of Space Intent vs. Everyday Life Analysis Sum-up and Conclusion The Staircase as a Specific Spatial Element

107 118 139 150 160 166 172 173

Part 4: Bridging Academia and Architectural Practice Introducing Collaborative Research Methods into the Constraints of Architectural Practice The Constraints of Practice The Gap: Research vs. Practice The Design Process Narrowing the Gap Evolving Practice through Design-Research Collaborations The Benefits of Collaboration Theoretical, Empirical, and Practice-oriented Discussions Method Discussions and Critique Implications for Design Theory and Practice Future Research

197 199 202 206 208 212 216 217 222 225 227

Conclusion Conclusion Theoretical Comments Building Evaluation & Empirical Findings Application to Practice

231 232 235 237

References

241

Introduction

“Architecture offers quite extraordinary opportunities to serve the community, to enhance the landscape, refresh the environment and to advance mankind – The successful architect needs training to overcome these pitfalls however and start earning some serious money” Stephen Fry, quoted in Lawson, 2005:17

Introduction

“Unlike works of art or sculpture, buildings must protect people from the elements and be safe, they must be functional and efficient, and they must support the psychological, social, and cultural requirements of their occupants” Nasar et al., 2007:2

The social condition of human life Humans are an integral part of a socio-physical environment, engaging simultaneously with different physical settings and other humans that co-inhabit these settings. This co-inhabitation means that the natural human situation is inherently a social one. This is especially true for today’s employees of various companies and organizations, who are surrounded by a number of co-workers and managers in their everyday work life, all of whom they have to cooperate, collaborate and interact with. It is well known that collaborations and social interactions are not just dependent on employees having a direct view and access to their colleague’s desk at work, but also on informal interactions, a positive social climate and organizational culture, among many other things. The nature of office work is changing, becoming more team and project-oriented, as well as more diverse and complex (Heerwagen et al., 2004). The so-called knowledge worker requires contemplation and concentration on the one hand, yet on the other, as Qvortrup (in 3XN, 2010) states, the knowledge worker also “demands social interaction because – as they say – one good idea leads to another” (p. 150). The building and the way it is designed is a condition for social interaction, but which layouts and spatial elements enable social and collaborative activity patterns among co-workers? Furthermore, how do we evaluate work environments in order to gain valuable knowledge useful in the design of increasingly humane buildings that afford a wide variety of both formal and informal social interactions? How do we enable positive social climates crucial to collaboration, so often mentioned as an aspect of great importance to organizations and the satisfaction of employees? 13

Over the past decades, buildings and the context in which they are designed and constructed are becoming increasingly complex (Preiser et al., 1988). Architects now have to incorporate thoughts and methods related to sustainability, user-led design, and many other, very diverse, aspects of both process and finished product. Our co-habitation as human beings means that action in any field is dependent on others to some extent. However, in the case of architecture, Till (2009) argues that architecture is particularly dependent on these external forces at every stage of a building’s journey from sketch to occupation: “… the whole design process is opened up to the input and control of others – clients, other architects, consultants, potential users, regulators and so on. While architects may try to calm the resulting flux through the imposition of standard design methodologies, the storm is never abated. Once the design is handed over to the contractor, the building industry inflicts its own set of uncertainties. And when the building is handed over to the client, a whole set of new and still more uncontrollable circumstances move in – the original users, new users, time, historians, new technologies, weather, events, and critics. Architecture is never alone” Till, 2009:46

Nonetheless, what generally forms the basis for decision-making in architectural practice is “tradition, expedience and made-up theory” (Mallory-Hill et al., 2012). A positive note to start this thesis on, could have been Lawson’s (2005) comment that “perhaps current thinking tends more towards making the designer’s decisions and value judgements more explicit and allowing others to participate in the process” (p. 125). However, on the very same page Lawson states that “designers do not aim to deal with questions of what is, how and why but, rather, with what might be, could be and should be” (ibid., p. 125). I would argue that perhaps this black-box way of not being interested in investigating and evaluating the results of one’s own designs, before embarking on new projects that are based on the same values and assumptions, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps this change has not yet reached most architectural practice, but being a part of practice while writing this practice-based Ph.D. makes it clear, that clients and developers are now beginning to demand evidence of how firms tackle design problems, and how the finished solutions they produce live up to their own intentions as well as the needs of the users. The underlying assumption of this thesis, follows the lines of Till’s arguments and argues for the necessity of including other fields of expertise into architectural practice. “Psychologists have a ‘thing’ about things. If anything they would prefer […] to have nothing to do with them” Costall & Richards, 2013:82

On the side of psychology, as shown in the quotation above, we often find a similar lack of interest, only this time in the socio-physical context of human actions and emotions. According to researchers in both environmental psychology and social psychology, the importance of place for people has generally been ignored within mainstream psychology (Dixon & Durrheim, 2000; Stedman, 2002, among many others). Here, the human sciences have created “a world of actors devoid of things” (Joerges, 1988:220), and the idea that things and objects have no psychology is prevalent (Costall & Richards, 2013). As such, “things have mainly failed to figure on the scientific agenda of psychologists, or even other social scientists” (ibid., p. 83). This thesis is theoretically placed within the fields of environmental psychology, ecological psychology, and situated action, and thus aims to contribute to the development of knowledge regarding the reciprocity between humans and our socio-physical context. Furthermore, this knowledge is applied directly to architectural practice in the form of a series of collaborative methods aimed at enabling the architect to design increasingly humane and socially oriented environments. In this thesis, the following research questions are pursued in the investigations of the opportunities for collaborative and social interactional activity afforded by the built environment: 1. How can the concept of affordances be expanded to encompass the social interactional aspects of situated human activity? 2. In what ways might traditional building evaluation methods be expanded in order to include a social interactional perspective? 3. How might research and architectural practice be bridged in order to enable more informed design regarding social interactional activities among building users? “… Architecture at every stage of its existence – from design through construction to occupation – is buffeted by external forces. Other people, circumstances, and events intervene to upset the architect’s best-laid plans. These forces are, to a greater or lesser extent, beyond the direct control of the architect. Architecture is thus shaped more by external conditions than by the internal processes of the architect. Architecture is defined by its very contingency, by its very uncertainty in the face of these outside forces” Till, 2009:1

Architecture Depends In Till’s (2009) book, from which I have borrowed the title for this section, it is argued that despite the struggle of many architects to resist and deny dependency, architecture is indeed a dependent discipline. Till (2009) points out, that architects “feel more comfortable in a world of certain predictions, in linear method, in the pursuit 15

of perfection” (p. 1), but that this is unattainable due to the complex social and institutional mess architecture is shaped by. This mess, however, “is not a threat, but an opportunity”, Till argues, and points out that the gap between architecture as practice, profession and object on the one hand, and what architects want it to be on the other, can be bridged by opening up to dependency as an opportunity, rather than a threat. He argues that “… the inescapable reality of the world must be engaged with and not retreated from”, and that “… in that engagement there is the potential for a reformulation of architectural practice that would resist its present marginalization and find new hope” (p. 2). What Till (2009) argues is that “architecture has avoided engagement with the uncertainties of the world through a retreat into an autonomous realm” (p. 5), and that architectural education exists within a black box, where students are generally discouraged from engaging in design that originates outside the studio. Thus, architectural students are trained in a black box that restricts intrusions from the outside “in order to allow the internal processes to develop on their own terms” (ibid. p. 8). Many of the standard texts within architectural history, Till (2009) argues, “remain within the tramlines of a self-referential architectural world, ignoring the other circumstances that frame architectural production” (p. 33). This allows for a continuous ordering of architectural problems that deny the contingency of architecture as both profession and practice: “The walls of the black box protect architects from the contingencies of the world beyond, allowing them to develop theories and practices unfettered by others” (ibid, p. 19). On the positive note, Lawson (2005) argues, that many architecture schools have recently begun to include material from the social sciences in order to help their students understand something about the users and their needs within the built environment. And, in fact, students of architecture generally find social science topics fundamental to their education (Mikellides, 2007). However, in relation to the gap between the story of the architect and actual architectural practice, Till (2009) argues that “we need more people who dare to eschew the greats [of architectural theory] and the specials, and look to the everyday, the social, and the economic as forces that shape architecture” (p. 19). Of course, as Till (2009) points out, not all architects hold to the tenets of the famous theoreticians in architecture. However, architectural culture has, to a large extend, been shaped by them. As a result, Till continues to argue that: “… the notion of the autonomy of architecture should come to a juddering halt. It allows architects to detach themselves as humans (social, political, and ethical beings) and then look through the wrong end of the telescope, and so to see the world as abstraction. One might think than an abstracted world can be ordered, beautified, and perfected, but in the end the real will come back to bite you. What becomes quickly apparent is that any permanent detachment is deluded” Till, 2009:25

Between Academia and Practice The project structure is a practice-based Ph.D., or what is referred to as an Industrial PhD in a Danish context, carried out as a collaboration between myself as the candidate, the architectural firm 3XN Architects, and the psychology department at Roskilde University. Working equally within academia and practice has proved both incredibly interesting and useful for the undertaken investigations. However, it has also occasionally been difficult and frustrating to manage two, often conflicting, approaches to working methods, relevance, and rigor. Nonetheless, being a part of architectural practice while undertaking these PhD studies has ensured availability of information on the design process, and the architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views on useful information and timing related to the introduction of research findings into this process. As such, being located in practice has made it possible to experience firsthand how the firm works and how the design process is structured. Thesis Structure As mentioned briefly above, the overall goal of this thesis is to enable the design of more humane buildings and work environments. This is achieved by including four different steps or parts in the investigations of the relationship between the design of the built environment and the opportunities created for socially interactive behavior. I thus present a four-fold problem: 1. The first part examines useful theoretical concepts and applies the concept of affordances (Gibson, 1986), extended to Gaverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1996) concept of affordances for sociality to situated social interactions within a framework of behavior settings (Barker, 1968). The aim of this part is to contribute to environmental design theory through first showing the usefulness of the concept of affordances, expanded to Gaverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1996) concept of affordances for sociality when examining social interactions within the built environment, and secondly showing the need for a situated perspective within environmental and ecological psychology. Taken together, these theoretical discussions contribute to the field of environmental design theory, by providing ecological and situated perspectives on the study of social interactions within designed settings, but also, in a boarder sense, they expand the focus on social interactional activities within both environmental and ecological psychology. 2. Related to social interactions, the second part of the thesis contributes to the development of necessary evaluation methods by expanding the areas traditionally evaluated within post-occupancy studies, and thus make possible a more holistic picture of how the buildings in question support the everyday social needs of the users on the one hand, and how well they live up the communicated intentions of the architect on the other. 3. The third part presents the empirical studies and emphasizes the need to include evaluations of how a building performs with relation to social 17

climate, employee interactions, and collaboration. To that end, three Northern European work environments are evaluated as behavior settings, and in terms of their affordances for sociality. The findings are analyzed both in terms of the types, amounts and placement of the social interactions within the environments, as well as in terms of how well the intentions of the architect can be observed in the everyday social life of the building users. 4. The fourth part focuses on how to bridge academia and architectural practice. Applying collaborative methods enable architects to engage in more informed design, as well as to live up to the intentions related to their building designs. The methods presented in this part aim to produce easily accessible and useful information that can inform the practical design process in relation to the social interactional activities and needs of the end-users. The goal here is to ensure increasingly humane and well-functioning future designs that afford a wide range of social interactions. Scope and Research Objects The thesis examines theoretical, methodological, empirical, and collaborative aspects of creating buildings that afford social activity patterns among users. The choice of theoretical aspects regarding social interactions within the built environment obviously does not imply that other perspectives could not have contributed productively to the investigated phenomenon. However, the aspects are chosen based on considerations of relevance, as well as on their potential to contribute to the production of useful knowledge regarding social aspects within the built environments within several different but related fields; environmental and ecological psychology on the one hand, and evaluation and architectural practice on the other. The epistemological point of departure is a social, reciprocal and situated position, where the theoretical perspectives enable a move towards a replacement of the dualist framework related to the separation of social and material aspects of human everyday life so common within many areas of traditional science. Traditionally, environmental psychology has been occupied with a series of topics, including privacy, territories, and personal distance, among many other areas related to the existence of others in the setting, but not to actual interactive activities, as I will return to later. In the analyses of situated social interactive activities in three work environments, it has occasionally proven relevant to mention and discuss issues of privacy, but in this thesis, I do not engage in a more comprehensive focus of this much-studied field within environmental psychology. Equally, with respect to aspects of territoriality, I have chosen to view differently used areas as behavior settings that afford differentiated use, and thus to view variances in space use from within an ecological and affordance based perspective. This choice ties in well with the overall affordance based approach applied in many of the different parts that make up this thesis. 18

Outside the field of ecological psychology, where the theory of affordances originates, almost no attention has been given to the relationship between the affordances offered by the environment and its users in terms of social interactions. Within ecological psychology, the amount of attention is still limited, as I will show later. Within Environmental Psychology, affordances are mainly seen as a theory that can inform us about the relationship between persons and objects, and to a lesser degree about the relationship between persons. The lack of socio-physical knowledge about specific constellations of spatial elements and their relationship with social interactions is problematic because it means that we lack knowledge about how it might be possible to expand the concept of affordances for social interactions, by applying it to design. The overall theoretical framework of this thesis, therefore, is one of situated social ecological and environmental psychology. In the following chapters I will introduce these different, but related fields, as well as discuss how they contribute to the investigations of social interactional activities within the built environment. I shall start with the field of environmental psychology. Before I start, however, I would like to address a more practical aspect. The overall text in this thesis has been divided into rather short sub-sections and sub-sub-sections with their own headings, in order to make navigation within the text easier for practice-based readers. With the goal of collaboration between research and architectural practice, in order to aid the design of an increasingly humane built environment, I consider it necessary to divide the text into sections that make it easier for practitioners to seek out and read sections of specific use and interest. These readers, generally, are unaccustomed to reading full volumes of academic text due to time-constraints, among other things, and thus need to be able to seek out specific information useful for certain tasks or situations. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Part 1

Social Perspectives in the Research of Environments

“Behavior can only be understood in its relations with real world situations” — Suchman, 1993

Environmental Psychology

With the concomitant discovery of the importance that the physical dimensions of the environment have on human actions and experiences, within different parts of psychology (as well as within connected areas) in the middle of the twentieth century, the possibility arose of the formation of a new field of research, specifically focused on the human-environment relationship. Thus, environmental psychology as a field was formed during the 1950s and 60s, as researchers from several different fields came together to place a deliberate focus on the relationship between physical surroundings and behavior (see Proshansky et al., 1970; Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995). Prior to that, “psychology had rarely extended its concern to the physical setting of behavior; for the most part, the discipline proceeded in its investigations as if people acted and interacted nowhere, in a black void” (Gifford, 2014:543). As a research field, Environmental Psychology concerns itself with the reciprocity between humans and the natural and built environment (Gifford, 2014; Bechtel, 2002; Bell et al., 2005; Cassidy, 1997), and “includes theory, research, and practice aimed at improving human relations with the natural environment and making the built environment more humane” (Gifford, 2014, p. 543). Fields of research interests then and now Research interests within environmental psychology have changed and evolved since the early beginnings of the field. During the 1950s and 60s, the focus was on specific building typologies, such as the design of psychiatric institutions (Proshansky et al., 1970). Later, in the 1960s and early 70s, research interests shifted towards topics related to public housing developments and the influence of design on the social organization of space (Wener, 2008). With the energy crisis and oil embargo of 1973, issues related to energy consumption and conservation behavior emerged (Wener, 2008). This interest has been continuous and a large part of the field today is focused specifically on pro-environmental attitudes and caretaking behavior (Gifford, 2014; Steg et al., 2013; Wener, 2008; Ferguson et al., 2011). 23

Other major areas of interest are place attachment (Gifford, 2014; 2016) and research within office settings (Maher & Von Hippel, 2005; Bodin & Bodin, 2009) . Common office setting research interests include settings suited for knowledge workers (Peponis et al., 2007; Brager et al., 2000) stress and various disturbances (Leather et al., 2003, see also Rashid & Zimring, 2008), and space perception and requirements (Fisher et al., 2004; Yildirim et al., 2007) related to open office environments. In addition to research regarding place attachment and office environments, interests such as urban green areas (Spartz & Shaw, 2011), crime perception and prevention (Pitner et al., 2012), effects of color and light (Hideayetoglu et al., 2012), and the perception of the natural environment (Steg et al., 2013) are also prevalent. Research related to social interaction within the built environment is quite limited in scope. However, some work is being done regarding collaborations (Lansdale et al., 2011; Kabo et al., 2015) and informal interactions (Fayard & Weeks, 2007) within work environments and office settings. As the main focus of this dissertation, social interactional activities in work environments will be discussed in more detail throughout. Heterogeneity and common goals Due to the nature of the formation of environmental psychology as a field comprised of several researchers from different areas, both within and outside of the field of psychology, such as architecture, sociology, geography and anthropology among others, environmental psychology has always struggled to find a common theoretical-methodological ground. The paradigmatic orientation of the field is characterized by plurality (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995), and the heterogeneity of the field in the beginning, as well as today, makes it difficult to define a more general scientific standpoint. However, there are common, more overarching goals across the many different aspects and perspectives within environmental psychology. These include the importance of place in relation to human behavior; increasing the understanding of the relationship and reciprocity between humans and the physical environment; and creating functional and humane environments. Different terms for the field Due to the above-mentioned heterogeneity characterizing the overall body of research on man-environment reciprocity, several different terms are used to cover the diverse areas of research topics within the field. Thus, in different parts of the world, and within various traditions in the field, a number of different terms are applied. The most common of these, environmental psychology, has gradually received less and less attention within a US context, where the term Environmental Design Research (EDR) is now being used in many instances. This, however, is not the case in other parts of the world (Wener, 2008). Wener (ibid.) points out that in the US, the term Environmental Design Research (EDR) â&#x20AC;&#x153;is commonly used to describe the interface between design fields and the social and behavioral sciences that addresses human aspects of, needs in, and responses to the built and natural environmentsâ&#x20AC;?, but also, that Environment-Behavior Research (EBR) might be a better choice, since this term actually includes the behavior aspect 24

missing from the term EDR. However, even in a North American context, the terms Environmental Psychology and EDR seem to be used interchangeably (see for example Wener, 2012; Wener, 2008; Gifford, 2014). A small amount of research within the areas related specifically to the built environment still uses the term Architectural Psychology (See Walden, 2009; Roessler, 2003 and others), although this term was generally renounced in favor of the broader term of Environmental Psychology after the energy crisis in the 1970s (Pol, 1993). This, however, was not the case in Britain and Sweden, where architectural psychology and collaborations between architects and psychologists grew and remained strong. Within a Danish context, research projects under the label of environmental psychology (‘miljøpsykologi’ in Danish), EDR, or any other related term, are close to non-existent. The few researchers or practitioners working within the field generally do so under other headings or use parts of the field in combination with other scientific fields, such as architecture and perception (Ahnfeld-Mollerup & Rostrup, 2011), anthropology (Bille, 2017; Bille & Sørensen, 2016), architectural research (Kirkeby, 2011; 2009, Grangaard, 2008), critical psychology and situated social practice (Dreier, 2008; 1999, Axel, 2008; 2009), evidence-based healthcare design (Frandsen et al., 2009), pedagogy (Larsen, 2005), user experience (Nørager, 2009a; 2009b), cooperative buildings (Moltke & Sønderstrup-Andersen, 1998), and social support in office settings (Thomsen et al., 2011). In terms of Danish architects, a focus on human-environment reciprocity can be found with Gehl Architects (Gehl, 1971, 2010), in part with Signal Architects, as well as with 3XN Architects (2010a, 2010b), the latter of which provides the empirical/investigative basis for this project. The increasing diversity of terms used to describe the research field focusing on man-environment reciprocity, creates increasing difficulties in defining the field as a coherent whole. Gifford (2014) argues that using the term environmental psychology is beneficial to the development, funding opportunities and professoriates within the field, and thus to the survival as a comprehensive field. Due to this compelling argument, and despite earlier arguments towards a renewed division between an environmental psychology for the natural environment, and an architectural psychology for the built or designed environment (Sylvest, 2009), this dissertation will concern itself with the field of environmental psychology as a comprehensive whole. The multidisciplinary character of environmental psychology and environmental design research, attracting researchers from the different social sciences on one hand and from environmental design fields, such as architecture, on the other, has, according to Altman & Stokols (1999) led to: “… stimulation and cross-fertilization, on the one hand, and to confusion and difficulty in communication, on the other. Some are concerned with basic and theoretical issues; some, with real-world problems of environmental design” Altman & Stokols, 1999:ix

Social perspectives in environmental psychology From within a framework of situated social behavior, environmental psychology appears to be lacking a viable understanding of the situated social aspect of life in the physical environment. Research within the field generally has an underlying basis in the physical aspect of the socio-physical environment and often deploys an individual perspective, rather than a social one. Social aspects are relatively often mentioned within environmental psychology and its related fields. These aspects, however, traditionally include topics such as crowding, territoriality, privacy and disturbances (see Gifford, 2014), rather than the opportunities provided by the environment in terms of social interactions and activities. Bonnes & Secchiaroli (1995) argue that the multitude of co-existing paradigms within environmental psychology can be traced back to two main traditions within the broader field of psychology: the psychology of perception, and social psychology. They (ibid.) note that during the emergence of the field of environmental psychology, the focus was reluctantly defined as the man-physical setting relationship and they point out that the recent publications of their time seemed to be placing an increasing focus on the social aspects of human-environment reciprocity. Indeed, in the 1987 Handbook of Environmental Psychology, the field is defined as “the study of behavior and human well-being in relation to the socio-physical environment” (Stokols & Altman, 1987, p. 1). According to Bonnes & Secchiaroli (1995), the new definition was used by the majority of subsequent authors. However, despite having argued for the use of the term socio-physical environment (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995), Bonnes & Bonaiuto’s (2002) contribution to the Handbook of Environmental Psychology returns to defining “The emerging environmental psychology as a psychology of the spatial-physical environment” (p. 28, my emphasis added). In addition, the above-mentioned handbook of environmental psychology (Bechtel et al., 2002), is almost completely lacking any form of focus on social context or perspectives, something also noted by Susan Saegert in her review of the publication, where she criticizes it for disregarding theories on “…the nature of space as a social product and lived experience…” (Saegert, 2004:262). From within a framework of social sustainability, Uzzell & Räthzel (2009) argue for a transformative perspective and call for a greater focus on context within the field of environmental psychology. They (ibid.) state that: “Behaviours need to be analysed in their specific social and environmental contexts…” (Uzzell & Räthzel, 2009:348), and point out that due to the applied and policy-oriented nature of the field, a large part of the body of research within environmental psychology focuses on formulating strategies and practices exclusively in order to change existing behavior, rather than focusing on the relationship between the actions of individuals and their political, economic and social contexts. However, Uzzell & Räthzel (2009) argue that it could be rather unproblematic to change this lack of focus, because environmental psychologists are sensitive to issues of context and because research within the field is interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary in nature.

Different views of the social In order to contribute to the possible change pointed out by Uzzel & RĂ¤thzel (2009) above, this dissertation aims to provide a viable way of understanding the social aspects of life in the physical environment, as well as to relate this understanding directly to the evaluation of the environment. From a more socially oriented building evaluation practice, the aim is to apply this more holistic understanding of social aspects of everyday life in the built environment to architectural practice. Enabling a more holistic view of the social aspects of everyday life among building users can be achieved through distinguishing between the understanding of the social aspect that is prevalent within the presented theoretical perspectives and fields. Hence, the social aspects are divided into the ones related to privacy, individual space requirements in relation to surrounding others, distances to social areas, and territoriality generally used within environmental psychology and building evaluations on the one hand, and the ecological and situated aspects of formal and informal interactions, collaboration, and communication on the other. Through a very context specific ecological and situated perspective, this dissertation aims to look specifically at opportunities for social behavior and interaction within work environments. The focus here is to investigate in situ social behavior patterns and how these are afforded through the design and layout of the built environment. The field of ecological psychology will be introduced for the purpose of providing an ecological and situated perspective to building evaluation, and a discussion of how the concepts here can be used to investigate and evaluate socially interactive behavior in specific spatial settings will be presented. Following this introduction to ecological psychology, the concepts of affordances and situated action will be introduced and applied specifically to social interactions.

Ecological Psychology

A Short Introduction to the field Ecological psychology is one of seven major theoretical approaches that have guided research within environmental psychology (Gifford, 2014). It remains an important perspective, which stresses the necessity of investigating perception and behavior as being embedded in a sociocultural context (Heft, 2012). Much like environmental psychology, ecological psychology is a heterogeneous field consisting of two different schools: Gibsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perceptual perspective (Gibson, 1986) and Barkerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eco-behavioral psychology (Barker, 1968). Heft (2001) points out that the term Ecological Psychology does not point to one shared perspective, but instead to several loosely joined positions that, in some instances, might only share a more general call for a focus on the environmental conditions for behavior. However, Barker (1968) and Gibson (1986) both stressed the importance of the environment in relation to human action and pointed out, that no sense could be made about any studied human behaviors or actions without a simultaneous focus on the context in which the behaviors took place. Hence, Heft (2001) states that a partial synthesis between the two perspectives can create a theoretically coherent foundation for an ecological psychology. Occasionally, a third school within ecological psychology is accredited to Bronfenbrennerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wholeness perspective on human development (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995; Pedersen, 2014 among others). Barker & Wright (1949) proposed an ecological perspective for psychology in the middle of the twentieth century, where they studied the everyday in situ life, or so called behavior settings, of children in several small towns in the American Midwest. The concepts and methods developed by Barker and White are still being refined and expanded by other researchers today (Wicker, 2002). Barker (1968) argued that human behavior is radically situated and thus, it is not possible to make predictions about behavior without knowing the situation or context within which the behavior occurs. In relation to these investigations of in situ behavior, Barker argues that there are certain forms of behavior that are considered appropriate in certain settings. In addition, Barker (1968) points out that behavior varies between different 28

settings, such as a classroom or school, a church or a private home. Barker’s argument here is that extraindividual, or collective behavior in specific settings, is more similar than an individual’s behavior seen across many different settings. Barker’s focus, therefore, is on extraindividual behavior of the collected number of persons within a given setting. I shall return to the concept of behavior settings later, as a part of the chapter on situated views on activity. Socializing Ecological Psychology Baron (2007) argues for the value of making ecological psychology more social, but also for social psychology to treat its key concepts in an embodied manner, and thus become more ecological. In addition, Heft (2001) argues that sociocultural processes must play a central role in ecological psychology, and that the accounts of psychological processes must be recognizable as something that accurately accounts for the individual’s own experience of everyday life. “It is becoming increasingly clear that ecological psychology is a part of a wider set of developments, within psychology and beyond, which both challenge and seek to replace the dualist framework of traditional science” Costall & Leudar, 1996:102

A social aspect in ecological psychology could resolve the dichotomy inherent in the socio-physical framework present in environmental psychology. This can especially be considered the case in relation to Gibson’s (1986) view of our directly contingent relationship with the physical surroundings and our co-inhabitants within it. This is something that will be discussed in relation to the development of a social perspective on the concept of affordances within ecological psychology, and the extended concept of affordances for sociality (Gaver, 1996) in the following sections. These sections are based on an article co-written with Sønderstrup-Andersen (Sylvest & Sønderstrup-Andersen, in review). The Concept of Affordances According to James J. Gibson (1986), “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” (p. 127). As such, affordances are what the environment offers any animal that has the necessary abilities to perceive and use the affordance in question, i.e. what we perceive as shape, size and motion on the one hand, as well as the functional meaning the object has for us on the other. Gibson wanted to understand how our perception could inform us about environmental objects and their meaning (Gibson, 1986). That is, affordances are meaningful. They convey to us what actions and behaviors are possible in a given place and are therefore features of the environment relative to the abilities of a certain animal. Affordances, therefore, are not inherent in the environment or in the perceiver alone, but in the relation between them. 29

Affordances address the reality of meaning, which is one of the most fundamental theoretical issues in psychology. Accordingly, Costall (1995) points out that “what, fundamentally, we attend to in our surroundings are not the shapes, colours and orientations of surfaces […], but rather the meaning of things for action” (p. 470). “The fundamental point of Gibson’s concept of affordances is that we need to take things themselves much more seriously in our account of their meaning precisely because, although we can do many different things with any thing, we cannot do anything with anything. Objects can object to certain ways of being used” Costall & Richards, 2013:85, their emphases

Or as Gibson put it: “What they afford […] after all, depends on their properties” (Gibson, 1966:285). Rietveld & Kiverstein (2014) argue that “up until now, affordances have typically been understood as motor possibilities the environment offers to creatures such as reaching, grasping, sitting, walking and so on” (p. 325). In addition, most of the work done regarding the concept of affordances deals with person-object affordances, that is, individual action within the physical environment, such as Warren and Whang’s (1987) study of affordances for passing through a doorway, or Warren’s (1982) work on stair climbing. Gibson’s seminal work, ‘The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception’ (1986) forms the foundation on which most research in affordance perception is based (Jones, 2003). However, the concept of affordances has been much debated throughout the years (for an overview of some of the debated topics see Chemero, 2003). Differences in the interpretation of the concept arise in areas such as whether affordances are properties or features of the environment and whether they exist without human beings or other animals present (Stoffregen, 2000; Heft, 1989, 2001; Turvey, 1992; Chemero, 2003), or whether the human or animal side of the relation is body scale (Warren, 1984; Warren & Whang, 1987; Heft 1989, 2001) or abilities (Chemero, 2003; Greeno, 1994), among others. Costall & Richards (2013) argue that “According to Gibson, the affordances of things are real, but they only come into being in relation to particular agents and their activities and capacities” (p. 85). Recently, however, Rietveld & Kiverstein (2014) have worked to bridge these differences within affordance theory. Their approach helps to dissolve the theoretical tension between the different views on affordances present within the field; that is, the view of affordances as available resources (see Reed, 1996; Silva et al., 2013 among others) on the one hand, and the view of affordances as relational on the other (see Chemero, 2003 among others). Instead, Rietveld & Kiverstein (2014) show that “affordances can be understood as being both relational and a resource” (p. 327, their emphasis).

Misuse and misunderstandings A problematic issue related to the concept of affordances has been the way the concept has been understood and used within different disciplines and theoretical fields. “Donald Norman’s very attractive and informative book The Psychology of Everyday Things […] was the first to bring Gibson’s concept of affordances to wider attention. Unfortunately, this book was also yet another source of confusion” Costall, 2012:92

Donald Norman was the first to introduce the concept of affordances to the design community. In The Psychology of Everyday Things (1988), he argues that what he terms ‘perceived’ affordances “result from the mental interpretations of things, based on our past knowledge and experience applied to our perception of the things about us” (Norman, 1988:219). This view of the concept of affordances was widely adopted in the design literature (Still, 2013), and according to McGrenere & Ho (2000), it has now taken on a variety of different meanings that are far from Gibson’s original concept. Later, however, Norman was to admit that he did in fact misunderstand Gibson’s original concept. The chapters on the topic here are part of an attempt to contribute to a Gibsonian understanding of the concept of affordances within design theory and practice. I recognize, of course, that there are some disagreements regarding the presence of a social perspective in Gibson’s work within different research communities. However, even though Gibson’s theory is one of perception, strong arguments have been put forward for applying it to social perception as well. Most notably, Gibson himself states that the affordances provided by other people are the richest and most intricate environmental affordances (Gibson, 1986). Also, Heft (2007) argues that even though it is left implicit, Gibson does recognize human-made artifacts as products of sociocultural processes, and thus, that no distinction can be made between the natural and the social world. Moreover, as I will show below, I find similar sociocultural arguments with Costall (1995; 2012, see also Costall & Richards, 2013). Canonical Affordances In stating that Gibson was right in arguing that the concept of affordances embrace both natural, artificial and cultural ‘objects’ Costall & Richards (2013) move the discussion further and argue that affordances can be canonical. This means that a thing is for something. The meaning of a thing is objective or ‘impersonal’ as Costall & Richards (2013, p. 87) put it. Furthermore, a thing still affords the same possibility for action even if it is used for something very different. Objects do not exist in isolation and further affordances develop dynamically during the concerted flux of activities of people. By introducing the concept of canonical affordances, Costall (2012) distinguishes between Gibson’s ‘affordances in general’ and the conventional, 31

normative affordances of a certain object. The fact that Gibson never distinguished between canonical affordances and affordances in general has, according to Costall (2012) been a major source of confusion concerning the concept of affordances. According to Costall (2012), canonical affordances are “the established, widely agreed use-meanings of things” (p. 92), and the concept is used in the cases where “it makes sense to talk of the affordance” of an object (ibid. p. 85, his emphasis). The canonical affordance of objects and artifacts is “the thing it is for”, which is impersonal, and thus “imply us, [but] in the plurality rather than the singular” (p. 87, his emphases). This impersonality of canonical affordances is established and maintained through the concerted activities of everyday life. Thus, canonical affordances do not refer to the perception of specific affordances by any individual, but to the collective perception of affordances developed through our collective daily activities in the world. According to Costall & Richards (2013), objectification of artifacts become a fact of life, because the users of them generally have not made these artifacts, but instead engage with them as partakers of the specific practice in which the artifact is a part. Furthermore, they argue that both natural objects and designed artifacts can “become incorporated into standard practices and attain a conventional or normative significance” (Costall & Richards, 2013:88). In addition, with reference to Keller & Keller (1996), Costall & Richards (2013) argue that “the affordance of an object is not neatly self-contained within the agent-object dyad, but implicates a ‘constellation’ of other objects and events” (p. 90), as well as “the encompassing practices in which they go together” (Costall, 2012:91, his emphasis). As such, the affordances of an object depend on both physical and cultural context, and “we experience objects in relation to the community within which they have meaning” (Costal, 1995: 472). Thus, objects become meaningful in the context of the community or practice they are used in. In effect, the presence of co-inhabiting others affects the affordances that we perceive objects to have within a certain socio-physical context. The way we learn about our world and the use of objects is through our “tacit, embodied understanding of the “canonical affordances”” (ibid.). This understanding, Costall (2012) argues, is found within the network of relations among different people, as well as the constellation of other objects in the shared practice of which the object in question is a part. We are introduced to a certain way of using objects by other individuals in the given context, and through that we learn not only what an object ‘happens’ to afford, but also what it is ‘meant’ to afford (Costall, 1995). In other words, Costall presents a situated view on affordances as emerging through collective activities within a specific context (Costall, 2012, see also Costall & Leudar, 1996). According to Costall and Richards (2013), “artifacts already embody human intentions”. Thus, “a chair is for-sitting-on whether or not anyone happens to be using it for that purpose” (p. 87, their emphases). With the exception of Costall (1995; 1999; 2012) and Heft (2001), previous work on affordances has largely neglected our participation in sociocultural practices, Rietveld & Kiverstein (2014) argue, and they go on to state that they “believe it is more precise to understand abilities in the context of a form of life. In the human case, this form of life is sociocultural” (p. 330). In addition, Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014) present a form of situated perspective on the affordances related to the interaction between members or a certain practice or context. 32

Surely inspired by Costall’s canonical account, they argue that there is a “normative dimension to the abilities of picking up affordances” (ibid., p. 326), a form of ‘situated normativity’. Furthermore, they argue that “the material environment has been sculpted by our sociocultural practices into a socio-material environment” (p. 335). Thus, this socio-material environment is a part of our social everyday life in the practices we engage in. As a result, Rietveld & Kiverstein (2014) point out that it makes more sense to talk about affordances as ‘aspects’ of the environments, rather than to use the term ‘features’. Alternative Use of Objects Artifacts, as Costall and Richards (2013) argue, are not fixed in their function, and we often improvise in our use of different conventional objects, even though we routinely become blinded to other possible uses. Even objects that have a canonical affordance can be used for limitless other purposes and thus, in principle, have limitless other meanings. However, the object always maintains its preferred use, or canonical affordance. In our daily practice, therefore, we: “routinely ‘misuse’ things, appropriating them into the flow of our activity in non-standard ways [and] sometimes, these improvised uses ‘take on’ the status of an additional canonical affordance. […] Sometimes, these alternative affordances require adopting a quite different ‘angle’ towards the object, or attending to characteristics that are incidental to its main function” Costall & Richards, 2013:89

Loveland (1991) has also argued for the existence of conventional affordances, or what she calls ‘preferred affordances’. Costall (2012), however, argues that this term does not capture “the institutionalized, normative status of such affordances” (p. 92). I would argue, however, that it might be useful to refer to these types of affordances as ‘culturally preferred affordances’. This term would indeed be easier understood in practice, require a lot less description and explanation, and thus be easier to use within researcher-practitioner collaborations. In the following section, I will look at the extensions to the original concept of affordances that aim to enable understanding of social interactions between individuals, so called ‘social affordances’. “What the other animal affords the observer is not only behavior but also social interaction” Gibson, 1986:42

Socializing Affordances Over the recent decades, there has been a great effort to expand the concept of affordances to also include social affordances (see Hodges & Baron (2007) for a good account of some of these efforts). Early research efforts within the framework of social 33

ecological psychology include McArthur & Baron’s (1983) work on developing the concept of social affordances, as well as Valenti & Good (1991) and Van Acker & Valenti’s (1989) work on person-to-person social interaction, and thus the possibilities for interaction that other people afford us. As a part of this early research, Loveland (1991) set up three categories of affordances: Person-object affordances, ‘preferred’, or cultural affordances, and social, person-to-person affordances. Here, the human environment is not viewed as a world of artifacts or humans alone and separate from one another, but rather “as a whole, considered from the standpoint of what it affords humans as a particular kind of animal” (p. 100). However, both in the case of Loveland, as well as other researchers, the concept of affordances was routinely split up into object related and socially related affordances. In recent years, research within the fields of social ecological psychology and ecological social psychology has placed a lot of focus on social coordination (See Marsh et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2006; Richardson et al., 2007, among others), rather than affordances provided by the socio-physical environment in terms of social interactions. This line of research, although interesting and relevant for several social aspects of ecological psychology, perhaps has less to say about social interaction as a form of situated social action independent of specific practical needs for cooperation, and more about social coordination related to carrying out a certain task. Others have also called for a social use of affordances: According to Costall (1995), Gibson “failed to engage in a […] exploration of the sociality of the material” (p. 467), and he argues that the concept of affordances should be socialized. Costall’s (1995) focus, however, in on the social aspect of affordances, but in the sense that all affordances should be considered social because objects “have been shaped, even deliberately designed, through the intentional activities of others” (p. 476). Thus, Costall (ibid.) is more focused on cultural practices and social influence in relation to the human environment, as we have seen above. He does, however, point out that “artifacts also bring people together, and serve as a focus of joint activity” (p. 471). Reed (1994) argues that “no where does the ecological approach to psychology show its value more than in explaining the transition from merely animate interaction to socialized interaction” (Reed, 1994, p.119). According to Reed (1994) , the individuals in our environment afford proper interaction if they are socialized in the same way we are, and thus are a part of the same “set of norms and properties of action” (p. 112). Interaction among agents in a setting occurs when these agents realize the affordances of the setting in the same way. Reed also points out that being socialized in the ecological point of view includes two things: The first is awareness of what I can afford you, and the second is the ‘socialized awareness’ of the environment and what it affords others, regardless of what it affords me (Reed, 1994:122). Reed makes it clear that inanimate objects only afford actions, while animate objects are the ones that afford interaction. Again, I believe there is a lack of focus on how the shared (physical) environment affords social interactions among agents. Once more, the focus is on person-person affordances, as well as environment-to-me and environment-to-other affordances. Within this 34

framework, I would therefore suggest an environment-to-us category. I will now turn my attention to this relationship between the physical environment and the social interactions that take place within it, in order to be able to answer questions such as: How, more specifically, does the environment afford interactions among users? And how can the concept of affordances be used in order to look at specific social interactional activities? “…the relationship between the social and physical environment and behavior in organizations may be more usefully explained as one of affordance than one of causality. This move, from causality to affordance, offers a non-deterministic way to theorize the influence of the social and physical environment” Fayard & Weeks, 2007

Affordances for Social Interaction As I have shown in the earlier sections, the majority of work done on the concept of affordances focuses on either person-object affordances, or person-person affordances, as well as, to a much lesser extent, canonical or normative affordances. To my knowledge, not much research has been conducted concerning the relationship between the affordances offered by the environment and its users, in terms of social interactions. However, I believe that it is both necessary and relevant to expand the concept of affordances further; from the person-person relation of social affordances to a broader understanding that also includes object affordances related to social interactions, something that I believe can be encompassed by Gibson’s concept. Gibson’s focus has been shown to be on both the material side and the social side of behavior (see Costall, 1995; Valenti & Good (1991), among others), and he believed that we perceive complex social affordances in the same way that we perceive object affordances (Gibson 1986:135-136). Therefore, I see no reason not to combine these two aspects of affordances. I thus believe that social interactions are not only dependent on what the other person affords the perceiver and vice versa, but also on the affordances provided by the physical environment making the interaction possible. In order to expand the concept of affordances to also include social interactional aspects of everyday life in the built environment, I use Gaver’s (1996) concept of ‘affordances for sociality’. Although based within a framework of Human Computer Interactions, Gaver relates affordances to design without falling into the trap of mental representation of things, as was the case with Norman (1988), and thus becomes useful to the expansion of the concept of affordances in the direction of social interactions. Gaver (1996) also points out that previous research regarding the concept of affordances falls into two categories: object affordances, concerned with person-environment affordances, and social affordances, concerned with person-person affordances. Coining the term ‘affordances for sociality’, he states:

“What I am concerned with here is the possibilities offered by the physical environment for social interaction. These are not social affordances, as defined above, but affordances for sociality. I believe they offer new opportunities for basic research and a powerful tool for design” (p. 3, my emphasis added)

Gaver (1996) relates affordances for sociality not only to the design of smaller scale objects, but to the environment in general, as well as to architecture and interior design: “An ecological approach to social behavior is also useful for guiding the design of things meant to support interaction (e.g. office layout […])” (p. 1). Moreover, he argues that social activities and cultural conventions are embedded in and shaped by the material environment. Gaver (ibid.) called for the development of a concept of affordances for sociality as far back as 1996, but to my knowledge, however, he never embarked on this line of research himself. Relationship between Social Interactions and the Physical Environment In a similar line to Gaver (1996), the ecological psychologist Stoffregen (2004) has suggested extending the concept of affordances to encompass human-environment interaction in terms of humans working together to operate complex machine systems such as ships and nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Stoffregen (2004) touches briefly upon the relationship between the physical and social aspects of the environment when he states that “…the concept of affordances can be applied to things that have not often been considered in terms of affordances, such as the opportunity for me to converse with a given person” (p. 83). In addition, he combines interaction, physical devices and a group of workers (p. 83-84) and thus creates a connection between social interactions and the physical environment. In addition, Kyttä (2002b) points out that the concept of affordances can indeed be extended to comprise the social and cultural opportunities provided by the environment, and pointing towards Barker’s (1968) concept of behavior settings, that affordances should be seen as a part of the total eco-social environment (Kyttä et al., 2004). From an empirical perspective, Clark & Uzzell (2002) combine affordances and social interactions in a study of developmental needs in adolescence. The focus here, however, is still on social affordances, rather than affordances for sociality. If we turn to James J. Greeno (1994) instead, it’s stated that the concepts of affordance and ability can be used in any analysis of interactional activity. According to Greeno (ibid.), physical aspects of the environment affords certain kinds of interactional behavior. However, he also points out, that while considerable efforts are being made in ecological psychology to develop a theory of activity understood as interactions between agents and the environment, the efforts to develop a similar theoretical account regarding social interactions within the physical environment, do not incorporate the concept of affordances, but rather ethnographic concepts and methods. Greeno (1994) calls for a theory that merges these two perspectives and states that: 36

“Gibson’s theorizing was seminal in the development of ecological psychology and is likely to be seminal in a more general development of a theory of activity viewed as interactive relations of agents with other agents and physical systems” Greeno, 1994:341

So far, however, the only place I have identified the concept of Affordances for Sociality in use is in the work done by Kyttä (2002a, 2004) and Kyttä et al. (2004), who uses it to complement Heft’s (1988) affordance taxonomy of children’s outdoor environments. The relation between affordances of the physical environment and social interactions, without the use of affordances for sociality, however, can be found in Skjaeveland & Garling’s (1997) work on Interactional Space. The concept of interactional space includes appearance, functional factors and the social activities and cognitions of the occupants. Skjaeveland and Garling (ibid.) use the concept of affordances to investigate whether users perceive a space as having the qualities that permit the intended social interaction, such as sufficient space to interact with others, as well as interaction enhancing features, such as staircases and semiprivate zones. This view of staircases, as a spatial element that fosters social interactions among users, is also prevalent within architectural practice, as I will show later. However, in the presentation of the empirical study of the central staircase at Ørestad High school later in this dissertation, I will challenge the view of the staircase as an interaction-enhancing feature in itself. According to Skjaeveland & Garling (1997), social contacts between people are enhanced by the presence of three variables in the setting: the opportunity for passive social contact, proximity to others, and appropriate space to interact. Interactional spaces are places suited for social interactions, and they are defined by appearance, functional aspects and the possibility to engage in social activities. However, apart from enhancing socializing because of their functionality, Skjaeveland & Garling (ibid.) argue that well-designed places also do so because they attract people aesthetically. Attractive places invite people to stay for longer periods of time, increasing the likelihood of meeting others with similar preferences or needs. Spatial features such as visual transparency, enclosure, complexity, and order are parts of formal aesthetics that are of great importance to human spatial experience: A well-defined and structured place that is perceived as being spacious, tends to attract people and therefore to enhance social contacts. However, it could also be argued that what attracts prolonged stays in a setting is the view to the social activity of co-users, rather than to an aesthetically pleasing physical setting. As I will show later, using open, visually transparent spaces and areas as vantage points in order to look at others, is a very common activity among building users. Finally, in addition to Skjaveland & Garling’s (1997) work on interactional space, Fayard & Weeks (2007) introduce the notion of social affordances in relation to informal interactions within the workplace. Social affordances, in their view, provide an integrated framework that explains how the physical and social characteristics of a setting combine to promote or inhibit informal interactions. Fayard & Weeks (ibid.) mention Gaver (1996), and note that he has pointed out that it is a 37

natural extension to apply affordance theory to social behaviors. Still, Fayard & Weeks (2007) use the term social affordances, otherwise used for person-person affordances, rather than Gaver’s (1996) term affordances for sociality. They (ibid.) do, however, attempt to build a theory of affordances for informal interactions including the three aspects of 1) privacy, 2) propinquity and 3) social designation. However, these are based to a large extent on Norman’s (1988; 1993) misunderstood extensions of Gibson’s (1986) original concept of affordances, and will therefore not be included in this thesis. Affordances and Architecture In certain areas of research, the concept of affordances has been incorporated into the investigations of different aspects of architecture, albeit often from within the areas such as engineering design and industrial design research. (For examples of the coupling of affordances to architectural aspects, see: Koutamanis, 2006; Brown &

Blessing, 2005; Kim et al., 2007 and 2008; Galvao & Sato, 2005 and 2006; Maier, 2005; Maier et al., 2007; Maier & Fadel, 2003, and Tweed, 2001).

From within a framework of design theory, Maier et al. (2009) argue that the concept of affordances can be used widely within architectural theory, design, and practice. “First, as to architectural theory, we assert that affordances can be used as a conceptual framework to understand the relationship between built environments and humans over time, especially with respect to the form, function, and meaning of architectural elements. Second, regarding architectural design, we propose that the concept of affordances allows for a common theoretical basis to improve the design process by offering a shared language among those involved in the design project, particularly architects and engineers. Third, regarding architectural practice, we believe that affordances may be used as an evaluation tool to explore the connection between the initial intentions or objectives of the design with how the artifact is actually used, leading to archived knowledge for use in future projects, and the potential for avoiding an array of common design failures” Maier et al., 2009:394

I would argue that the concept of affordances would indeed be able to offer a shared language, not only between architects and engineers, but equally importantly, between the different types of designers and practice-based design researchers. As such, the concept of affordances might serve as a link between the psychological and material sides of a design project, ensuring improved opportunities for creating more humane physical environments. 38

However, in order to truly understand social interactional activities within work environments, it is vital to take a closer look at the situated nature of these activities as a part of actual everyday life of building users.

A Situated View on Activity

In Situ Aspects of Environmental and Ecological Psychology Within the fields of both environmental and ecological psychology there are examples of researchers working within a situated perspective on activity. Barker (1968) placed great emphasis on his in situ approach to collective behavior within behavior settings, something I will return to later, and Canter (1986) pointed out that environmental psychology is “the study of situated human action” and that “people always situate their actions in a specifiable place and that the nature of the place, so specified, is an important ingredient in understanding human action and experience” (p. 8). While Costall and Leudar (1996) suggest looking outside the realm of environmental or ecological psychology for a situated perspective on action, and thus point to Lucy Suchman’s (1987) account of Situated Action, Heft (2001, 2007) suggests a synthesis between Gibson’s ecological psychology in the form of affordances, and Barker’s eco-behavioral science, in the form of behavior settings. In the following chapters, I will attempt to show the usefulness of integrating all three concepts or theories into the investigation of situated social interactions occurring in three work environments. This integration provides a broader view of how particular situated social interactions are afforded through the design of the buildings, as well as how they are affected by organizational and locally developed cultures. I will begin with a section on Suchman’s (1987) concept of situated action, before I present Barker’s (1968) concept of behavior settings. “Behavior can only be understood in its relations with real world situations” Suchman, 1993

The Situated Perspective on Action From within a framework of ethnomethodology, Suchman’s focus on situated actions provides a view on interaction that proves useful when looking at interactions in the built environment. A focus on the situated nature of actions and 40

interaction within the socio-material circumstances aids the move from “the primacy of cognition to the primacy of action” (Costall & Leudar, 1996:102) within ecological psychology. In her seminal work, Plans and Situated Action (1987), Suchman argues that action and its situation are reciprocally constituted, and that the “course of action depends in essential ways upon its material and social circumstances” (p. 50). Furthermore, she argues that instead of abstracting action away from the circumstances, we should study how people use these social and material circumstances to achieve “intelligent action”. (ibid., p. 50). As mentioned above, Suchman (1987) argues that there is a reciprocal relationship between the social and the material conditions of action, and that the two constitute an inseparable pair. Moreover, she views actions as improvised in situ rather than something that is controlled by prior cognitions. As such, situated actions concern the “relations among people, and between people and historically and culturally constituted worlds they inhabit together” (Suchman, 1993, p. 71). With Suchman, therefore, there is a useful and viable focus not only on interactions, but also on how the socio-material surroundings and circumstances afford these interactions. In addition, in what could also be related here to the concept of affordances, Suchman (1987) points out, that “it is frequently only on acting in a present situation that its possibilities become clear…” (p. 52). That is, our situated actions within a certain setting allow us direct perception of the different affordances for actions or interactions offered by the material and social circumstances. Furthermore, Suchman (2001) argues that it is possible to work towards a synthesis of sociality and materiality by characterizing artifacts in terms of their performance characteristics, and she states that “artifacts construct social persons as much as the other way around” (p. 165). Artifacts here are understood as “any material production of skilled practice” (Suchman, 2001:163), and thus include spatial layouts and designs produced in architectural practice. Equally, it could be considered fruitful to combine Suchman’s (1987) approach with cultural affordances, as she states that: “the stability of the social world […] is not due to an eternal structure but to situated actions that create and sustain shared understandings on specific occasions of interaction”, so, “rather than actions being determined by rules, actors effectively use the normative rules of conduct that are available to produce significant actions” Suchman, 1987:66, her emphases

These rules are learned “through typification over families of similar situations and actions” (ibid., p. 67). Despite these typifications, Suchman argues that: “…no action can fully provide for its own interpretation in any given instance. Instead, every instance of meaningful action must be accounted for separately with respect to specific, local, contingent determinants of significance” Suchman, 1987:67

As will be shown in the analysis later, Suchman’s approach to situated actions proves useful in the study of everyday situated social interactions among employees, where the day is made up of a series of different actions and interactions. In this regard, Suchman (1987) points out that “… the environment of our actions is made up of a succession of situations that we walk into and to which we respond” (p. 54). Plans and Situated Actions According to Suchman (1993), plans are “among many things that situated action produce”, and these plans are always in a larger context of ongoing practical activity. Thus, they are “subsumed by the larger problem of situated action” (Suchman, 1987, p. 50). These plans are resources for situated action, but do not determine the course of the actions. However, plans do not stand outside of action, as Suchman (2007) points out in the reworked edition of Plans and Situated Actions, but are themselves “…moments of situated activity…, displaced in time and space from the occasion anticipated…” (p. 71). In addition, Suchman (1987) argues that “plans allow us to bring past experience and projected outcomes to bear on our present actions” (p. 186). Thus, as we shall see later, this aligns with the abilities of informants and users of the three case-study buildings analyzed in Part 3 of this dissertation to anticipate or recall certain affordances provided within a space. One example of this is when users walk from any other room over to the centrally located atrium space in order to look over the railing for someone, or for general entertainment. Suchman (1987) argues that the following pertains to plans and situated actions: • Purposeful action is learned, and subject to cultural variation. • All activity is fundamentally concrete and embodied • Purposeful actions are situated actions. That is, actions taken in the context of particular, concrete circumstances. • Given the continuously changing circumstances of our actions, our plans are ad hoc activity. • That is, actions are primarily situated, and situated actions are essentially ad hoc. • The essential nature of action, however planned or unplanned, is situated. The Importance of the Particular The situated approach places a radical emphasis on the particular circumstances within which actions and interactions take place, and how these socio-material circumstances afford different forms of action between actor and environment, but also between several actors present within the same environment. Suchman argues that the focus of study needs to be on the actual circumstances people act in, and states that “the organization of situated action is an emergent property of moment-by-moment interactions between actors, and between actors and the environment of their action” (Suchman, 1987:179). 42

The way we engage with the situations we act in is through “situated actions that create and sustain shared understandings on specific occasions of interaction” (Suchman, 1987:66). These shared understandings form social constraints on the actions that are appropriate in the particular, unique situation. As such, it could be argued that organizational and locally developed cultures, which I will return to in the analysis of my empirical findings, create specific situations and rules of conduct that guide activities within the setting. Appropriate actions, however, are not determined by these normative rules. Rather, the available rules are something actors use in order to produce significant actions (ibid.). In addition, Suchman argues that these normative rules of conduct are learned tacitly, rather than taught or encoded, through our experiences with similar situations and actions. In relation to these shared understandings of the situations in which we act, Suchman (1987) points out that: “instead of looking for a structure that is invariant across situations, we look for the processes whereby particular, uniquely constituted circumstances are systematically interpreted so as to render meaning shared and action accountably rational” Suchman, 1987:67

In other words, when investigating the situated nature of social interactions, we need to look for the particular situations of importance to everyday life in a given setting. The concept of affordances is in itself a form of situated approach, compared to a cognitive approach relying on mental representations of the surrounding environment. Introducing a truly situated and practice-oriented perspective is necessary, however, because of the importance of the particular in our everyday social lives. As I will show in the analyses of everyday social activities later, the particular is what defines many of our activities. Here, architectural determinism and specific design intentions and belief, sometimes overlook the importance of the particular, and thus it becomes important to show architectural practice how the context of activities and spatial elements alike are particular and thus important for our social interactional activities within the overall setting.

An Extraindividual Perspective on Affordances: Introducing Behavior Settings

According to Valenti & Good (1991), “the concept of culture has a central role to play in the further development of the notion of social affordances and, in particular, articulating the relationship between social affordances and interaction” and that “the nature of sociality and the phenomena of culturally organized activity and interaction must be embraced sooner rather than later” (p. 92). As such, culture is viewed as affecting social interactions within a given context. But, can it even be argued that culture affords interactions? Gibson (1986) argued that it is “a mistake to separate the cultural environment from the natural environment, as if there were a world of mental products distinct from the world of material products” (p. 130, my emphases added). However, a clear tension remains within Gibson’s theory of affordances when it comes to social and cultural factors. If we are to look at culture as more than simply something inherent in our production of tools and artifacts, and instead also as an aspect of life that encompasses rules of conduct, as we saw with Suchman (1987), then Gibson’s concept of affordances falls short of providing a useful way of investigating and understanding these matters. As such, a problem arises when trying to understand how organizational culture affords action and interactions among employees. Even though Gibson (1986) did in fact make a distinction between material and cultural objects, organizational culture does not live up to the invariant and directly perceptional nature of affordances. Thus, Gibson’s theory of affordances falls short of providing us with a way to look at what the specific culture of a place affords us. Instead, Gibson’s approach focuses on the objects and artifacts that are the products of a certain sociocultural practice. In keeping with Gibson’s (1986) concept of affordances, one could argue that any situation encountered in a place is in fact a product of the prevailing culture within the place. This view, however, still fails to adequately account for the underlying understandings and rules of conduct that permeate settings and their participants. However, if the concept of behavior settings is included in the overall framework, it becomes possible to understand how culture does indeed afford certain activities through shaping the behavior setting of which these activities 44

are a part. A behavior setting as a whole has affordances, including affordances for sociality, and organizational culture is a part of the behavior setting due to participants acting according to certain common constraints and possibilities. Heft (2007) argues that affordances derive not only from “an individual’s relationship to objects and to other persons. They also arise from places” (p. 96, his emphasis). He continues to argue, that “the possibilities that stem from social relationships and socially sanctioned actions contribute much of a place’s affordances” (p. 97, my emphasis). Socially sanctioned actions are what Suchman (1987) refers to as rules of conduct and are thus part of the overall culture of the place, such as organizational culture, or locally developed cultures within specific places, as we shall see in the analysis later. As suggested by Heft (2007, 2001), it might indeed be necessary to include Barker’s (1968) concept of behavior settings when investigating sociocultural practices that are not defined by the production of concrete tools and artifacts. As I will show below, Barker’s behavior setting framework lends itself well to a situated, affordance-based analysis of social interactional activities within the built environment. Barker (1968) placed great emphasis on his in situ approach to studying collective behavior within specific settings, and he argued that human behavior is radically situated and that predictions about behavior can only be made by examining the entire organism-in-environment situation. Heft (2001) has done some great work towards combining affordances and behavior settings, and thereby creating a more coherent ecological approach for psychology. In terms of behavior settings, Heft (2007) points out that the “pattern of actions is structured by a joint understanding among participants of the purpose of the collective activity” (p. 97), although the understanding of the purpose can vary between different participants in the setting, depending on the person’s function. Like Gaver’s (1996) concept of affordances for sociality, in Barker’s (1968) theory of behavior settings, the so-called ‘milieu’ refers to inanimate features that support the intended activities. As such, I consider it possible to integrate these approaches. “Behavior setting theory proposes that there are specific, identifiable units of the environment, that is, behavior settings that, because they combine both physical and social elements of the environment into one unit, have powerful influences on human behavior […]. [Where] other psychologies often study the relationship between the physical and social clusters of the environment […] the behavior setting is the only unit that requires both in its basic analysis” Scott, 2005:297

Behavior Settings Through their studies of in situ behavior in a small Kansas town, Barker and his colleagues found that a person’s behavior changes dramatically between different places, and that the collective behaviors of the people present in a specific place 45

are often more similar than the behavior of a single person seen across different places. Barker (1968) has argued that the predictable patterns of action seen in specific places point to higher order ecological units, something he termed behavior settings. As such, these settings influence behavior in predictable ways. Heft (2001) points out that “behavior settings occur naturally as a function of the collective actions of a group of individuals” (p. 253, his emphasis), and that they are quasi-stable entities that have a specifiable geographical location and temporal boundaries. Thus, they are sustained over time by their participants. Furthermore, a behavior setting can be perceived and exists independently of any single person’s experience of it (Barker, 1968; Heft, 2001). Barker (1968) argues that “people conform to a high degree to the standing patterns of the behavior setting they inhabit” (p. 164). And in relation to this, Heft (2001) points out that “in contributing to the creation and maintenance of the behavior setting, the participants in turn are limited by its consensually defining meaning” (p. 255). Scott (2005) notes that people enter specific settings by choice, but “once in the settings they usually conform to its constraints” (p. 298). However, Scott (ibid.) also points out that settings change and that the participants play roles in these changes. These roles, however, are played as components of the settings, rather than as individuals. In other words, the essential point of behavior settings is that behaviors are not distributed by chance. Rather, there is “order in the environment considered independently of any particular individual” (Heft, 2001:260). According to Heft (2001), this order is possible because people are social beings, “attuned from the outset of life to information from social sources and social processes” (ibid.). If an individual violates the rules of a specific behavior setting, he or she runs the risk of being ejected from it by other participants trying to maintain the order. One could argue, perhaps, that behavior settings can be viewed in a deterministic light, leaving no room for individual choices. In relation to this view, Heft (2001) argues that: “…the functioning of any individual interjacent component is not being described with a high degree of precision. Instead, this is a description of collective processes. Behavior settings do not determine individual behavior; they constrain it. And by limiting possibilities, they create opportunities for individual choice, even individual invention within its framework” Heft, 2001:256

In addition, Scott (2005) notes that there are two separate and distinct roles that participants play in a setting. On the one hand, participants are individual behavers that respond to cues, or affordances, within the environment, and on the other hand the participants are also components of the setting, who emit cues for the behavior of their co-participants. Another criticism is posed by Kaminski (1983), who argues that behavior setting studies need to be complemented by the study of other aspects of the environment in order to include the variety and diversity of everyday life among 46

the participants of a given place. As such, Heftâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2001, 2007) synthesis between affordances and behavior settings, but extended here to Gaverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1996) affordances for sociality, provides a major part of a useful approach to the investigation of everyday social life within work environments. However, Heft (2001) points out that behavior settings are sociocultural practices, and as such I would argue that the prevailing culture of a particular place is a part of what affords sociality to the participants. Thus, a situated approach to a synthesis of behavior settings and affordances provides a viable way to investigate both individual and cultural aspects of particular social activities in the built environment. Moreover, as I will show later, both organizational culture and locally developed cultures in specific rooms and areas are an important part of the everyday social life of the users of the three investigated buildings. Using this combined approach, it becomes possible to understand the effects that culture has upon in situ social interactional activities. In the next chapter, I will take a look at some of the ways in which organizational culture affects the opportunities for social interactions within a given organization. What becomes interesting in this respect, is how the organization utilizes the physical environment in order to enable positive social interactions among co-workers, and thus better opportunities for collaborations and the creation and maintenance of a positive social climate. Seemingly minor features of the culture within a certain organization might indeed impact the level of collaboration and necessary social interactional activities in major ways as I will show in the analysis of the three case-study buildings.

Organizational Culture as Context

“With recognition of the benefits of informal interaction has come interest, among both researchers and practitioners, in understanding how to foster them” Fayard & Weeks, 2007:605

When commissioning a building, the client must take several aspects into consideration. These aspects include considerations related to price, style, types of tasks to be carried out within the building, and the spatial and symbolic needs of the organization. However, the considerations should also include careful consideration of the organizational culture and how to obtain a building that either truly fits the culture in question, or how to change the existing organizational culture in ways that fit the type of building desired. All too often, organizations use buildings as symbolic representations of a different organizational culture, and thus there is a mismatch between actual culture and the built environment. This mismatch creates vast problems for employees when carrying out their tasks, or when trying to create a positive social climate. The result is less collaboration, well-being, and satisfaction on the one hand, and increased frustration and possibly stress among the employees on the other. Thus, a good match between organizational culture and the built environment is vital for both the organization and its employees. Organizational Culture and the Physical Environment “The physical environment […] may hold significant messages for organizational members in relation to what they need to know about the culture, structure and roles and routines of the organization” (O’Toole, 2001:10). However, the physical aspects of workplaces are all too often overlooked in discussions about organizational learning (ibid.). In relation to this, O’Toole (2001) argues that the encoded information about an organization’s culture can be found in the form of the floorplan for the building that houses the organization in question. According to Peponis et al. (2007), 48

“…the impact of design goes beyond supporting more intense patterns of interaction and smoother flows of information. Workplace design and layout provide […] an intelligible framework within which copresence, co-awareness, and interaction patterns become engaged in the exploration, representation, interpretation, and transformation of collective knowledge…” Peponis et al., 2007:815-816

Peponis et al. (2007) argue that workplace design and layout can support both formal and informal communication, and they point out that the role of space in relation to these interactions cannot be fully understood by simply investigating how the space provides access to people and resources, or how it facilitates flow of information. Here Peponis et al. (2007) point out that the flow model focus on establishing the required flow of information, by placing people who need to communicate near each other, obviously becomes problematic if communication patterns are unpredictable, or if employees need to communicate with too many co-workers. With regard to the serendipitous communication model of creating access to others, it is argued that informal, designated meeting areas afford the bringing together of co-workers outside their normal workspace. As Peponis et al. (2007) point out, this model encourages frequent, unplanned interactions among different employees, and thus partially compensates for the unpredictability of communication in the workplace. I would argue that it is much more relevant to investigate the occurrence of social interactions across a given setting, rather than to focus specifically on designated social interaction areas, and thus possibly overlooking any other areas being used in this respect. However, Peponis et al. (2007) do state that it is necessary to complement these models by looking at space in terms of its intelligible structure. As such, it would be necessary to look at how the designated social areas are understood by the users, but I would also argue that it is of equal importance to investigate how other areas within the setting are understood in terms of their affordances for sociality and preferred use. From within a framework of situated action, Suchman (1987) argues that: “We walk into a situation, identify its features, and match our actions to it. This implies that, on any given occasion, the concrete situation must be recognizable as an instance of a class of typical situations, and the behavior of the actor must be recognizable as an instance of a class of appropriate actions” Suchman, 1987:63

“Spatial layouts can significantly influence the formation and outcomes of social relationships” Kabo et al., 2015:57

Activity Spheres On a more practice-based level, Lansdale et al. (2011) state that “there is evidence that design of a work environment can have a considerable impact on communication and relations between its occupants if it increases the ease of access and the likelihood of chance encounters during the working day” (p. 409). However, employees in different work environments generally use specific parts of the environment more than other parts. Kabo et al. (2015) have termed this individual sphere of activities the ‘functional zone’: “An individual’s functional zone defines his or her sphere of potential interactions with others in a spatial system” (Kabo et al., 2015, p. 65). Kabo et al. (ibid.) argue that individuals in the setting have more or less established spheres of operation, generally using the same elevator, restroom, or break area. These personal movement patterns within the setting affect the range of possibilities for social interaction among co-workers using different areas of the setting. As I will show later, this also pertains to choosing the same desk in work environments with a flex-desk system. Regarding employees in school settings, however, these generally use a broader range of different areas, because their location within the building changes throughout the day, as I will also show in the analyses of the three case-study buildings presented in Part 3. In relation to spatial layout, O’Toole (2001) argues that a floorplan of any given building shows encoded information about the organizational culture of the occupant organization. I believe this to be true on an initial level, if the paying client is indeed also the user-client. However, this view disregards any locally developed cultures in a building over time, as I will return to in the analysis. In addition, I would argue that viewing the floorplan, and thus the intentions of the architect and organization in question, as a realistic picture of the organizational culture, will often be misleading. All too often, buildings are not used as strategic tools to function as a connection between users and organization. Instead, they are used as economical and symbolic tools to reduce costs, while also signaling flexibility and creativity to customers and outside users. The organizational culture of the building in question often has very little to do with the signaled aspects, and organizational culture does not always change in relation to a move into a new building, despite intentions for it to do so (See Christensen, 2009). Coordination and Cooperation in Groups and Dyads Among other models, Baron (2007) points out that groups can be viewed as a tool structure, where shifts in effectivities and utilization of new affordances occur when individuals aggregate into groups: “the group is viewed as a functional unit that operates as a type of metatool that enhances individual response capabilities so as to make reachable affordances that couldn’t be reached at the individual level” (p. 187), but also, that this model should be combined with 50

the “I to We” model (Gilbert, 1996). The “I to We” model sees joint commitment as the basis for group formation. Baron (2007) argues that the tool structure and “I to We” models, taken together, forms a more complete model of the coordination-cooperation relationship in groups. Coordination here is viewed as a means rather than an end. The formation of very cohesive smaller groups or units within the workplace setting, however, is not necessarily a positive aspect of social interaction. Groups and dyads are held together by trust, Baron (2007) argues, and “this moral dimension is entailed by a joint commitment to a relationship or a social unit’s persisting over time” (p. 190). Baron points out, that a certain level of trust is necessary in order for individuals to move from working alone to working together. Trust, therefore, is the basis for team activities. For the occurrence of social interactions between different groups in the work environment, however, long-term collaborations within smaller local social units or dyads are not always good for the overall team. The build-up of trust within the smaller units creates strong ties that can undermine intra-group cooperation and interaction between the unit and the team. Thus, if the smaller units within the workspace are less internally cohesive, interactions become more possible, since “groups characterized by loose ties are better able to build bridges or connections to other groups” (Baron, 2007, p.186). “The increasingly collaborative nature of knowledge-based work requires workplaces to support both dynamic interactions and concentrated work, both of which are critical for collaboration performance” Hua et al., 2011:807

Collaborations in the Work Environment According to Hua et al. (2011), shared spaces in office environments are critical to the occurrence of both formal and informal collaboration activities. Shared spaces provide opportunities for people to meet and interact, while simultaneously creating the necessary spatial diversity in the setting to allow users the choice of engaging in concentration work, collaborative activities, or informal interactions based on their current needs. Spatial diversity also affords the choice of where, when and how employees work (Becker, 2004). However, Hua et al. (2011) point out, that the shared spaces, and the overall layout they are a part of, are often overlooked in favor of investigations related to individual workstations. Nevertheless, just like in large parts of environmental psychology and its related fields, the investigations of Hua et al. (2011) focus mainly on the effect of distances to shared spaces, as well as on the size of these spaces and the general density of the work setting. Omitted are the social aspects of the interactions occurring within the investigated settings. In fact, no actual behavior patterns are observed, but rather they are referred to through answers to survey questions related to the users’ perception of how the environment supports collaborative activities. 51

However, distance related aspects do prove important in the sense that co-workers are more likely to interact and collaborate if they are placed in close proximity to each other. The amount of interaction and collaboration activities thus decreases with distance, but it is reduced further if the co-workers are placed on separate floors, and is practically non-existent if they are placed in different buildings (Kraut et al., 2002). In contrast, Kabo et al. (2015) propose, â&#x20AC;&#x153;that zone overlap better captures the effects of space on collaboration dynamics than do physical distance measuresâ&#x20AC;? (p. 60). They (ibid.) argue that distance measurements miss the aspects of the setting that shape the likelihood of informal contacts during the course of normal day-to-day activities. The visual access to different offices from communal spaces also impacts on the frequency of unarranged visits from co-workers, compared to offices placed in more isolated and less visible areas (Lansdale et al., 2011).

Part 2

Expanding Building Evaluation Methodology

“Why have architects talked about the assessment of building performance for so long and yet have been so slow to do anything about it?” — Francis Duffy in Preiser & Vischer, 2005

Evaluating the Built Environment

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why have architects talked about the assessment of building performance for so long and yet have been so slow to do anything about it?â&#x20AC;? Francis Duffy in Preiser & Vischer, 2005:xi

In architectural practice, there is a widespread belief that certain spaces and architectural elements promote increased levels of social interactions among users. All too often, though, these assumptions are not evaluated and thus, no knowledge about the social performance of specific areas and elements is fed back into the design process. Where buildings are evaluated, the evaluation is generally carried out by the owner, or the organization occupying the building. As a result, only aspects related to malfunctions and issues to be corrected are communicated back to the architects in question. In this chapter, I will introduce the methods traditionally used for evaluating the built environment, and as such an introduction will be given to post-occupancy and building performance evaluation. Through a review of the literature, I will show the general lack of focus on social interactions within the field of building evaluation, but also that a socially oriented focus now appears to be increasing.

Evaluation: Methodologies and Practice

“A design has to be evaluated according to how it is used and not on how it appears to the designer” Preiser et al., 2012:16

A lot of great work has been done in recent decades in order to develop viable evaluation methods and ensure there is an opportunity for relevant knowledge to be fed back into future design projects. The development of first Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) and later Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) has been undertaken in order to aid the creation of more humane and well-functioning buildings for the end-user, more sustainable user-building interactions, and buildings that fit the organization in question and thus help create optimal work-flows, productivity and employee retention. There is, however, an important area of life in the built environment that still needs to be investigated as a part of all evaluation efforts in order to gain a truly holistic picture of all the aspects of human life in the built environment. This aspect is the social behavior patterns and interactions of users and the opportunities the built environment offers in terms of social interactions, collaborations, positive social climate, informal meetings and the sharing of knowledge. Because this dissertation aims to apply methods of evaluating socially interactive behaviors into these more established evaluation methods, the following sections will provide a brief introduction to both Post Occupancy Evaluation and its development into the broader method of Building Performance Evaluation. In addition, it will attempt to highlight the lack of focus on social behavior within building evaluations today. Post Occupancy Evaluation Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is the act of evaluating buildings after a certain period of occupancy by the end-users. The evaluation is carried out “in order to improve the performance of both the buildings examined, and the knowledge and understanding of those who commission, design, build and manage them” 58

(Bordass & Leaman, 2005, pp. 72). Where some of the earliest efforts were one-off case

studies during the 1960s, the evaluation field quickly started to focus primarily on the rapid public housing developments of the post-World War II era. These developments experienced a wide array of social and architectural problems, which led to widespread interest in the systematic assessment of how they were being used (Vischer, 2001). POEs are now being used as a tool by the building industry in order to collect useful information about the long-term impact of design and construction decisions. According to Preiser & Vischer (2005), other types of evaluations conducted prior to occupancy are generally related purely to technical aspects of the building in question, such as materials or engineering issues. POEs, they point out, have a different focus, since they evaluate and address “the needs, activities, and goals of the people and organizations using a facility, including maintenance, building operations, and design-related questions” (Preiser & Vischer, 2005:8). This, they note, is done by measuring organizational and occupant performance, worker satisfaction and productivity, as well as building performance related to acoustics, lighting levels, space adequacy, and layout or spatial relationships etc. Reasons to conduct a POE includes determining how different types of behavior are enabled or limited by the design of the space, as well as how this impacts user experiences, productivity and well-being. According to Watson (2012), carrying out a POE not only contributes valuable information and knowledge to apply in future design projects, but also affords the opportunity for the users to adjust their “expectations and work practices to the possibility of the design”. While I recognize the huge undertakings and many difficulties involved in making major changes to existing buildings in order to make them truly humane and functional for a certain group of users, I also object to the notion of all adaptive responsibility being placed on the user. Worth mentioning here, in my opinion, is the possibility of adjusting the physical space on a minor scale, or adapting the organizational culture to better fit the everyday work practices taking place within the setting, both of which are aspects often highlighted through POEs. With the development of evaluations within environmental psychology, POEs are now often included as a feature, or sub-process, of the more holistically oriented Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) approach. However, it should be mentioned, that even as a separate process, POEs continue to expand, mostly in industrialized nations around the world (Preiser & Vischer, 2005/2015). I will now give an overview of the relatively recent development of Building Performance Evaluation within the field. Building Performance Evaluation As POE-studies gathered large amounts of data and information, which often remained unused by clients and architects (Preiser & Vischer, 2005), researchers in the International Building Performance Evaluation Consortium (IBPE) began work to evolve the concept and method of POE into the more holistic process of Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) (see Preiser & Schramm, 1997; Mallory-Hill et al., 2012; Preiser & Vischer, 2005 and Preiser et al., 2015). The BPE process is based on the POE process model developed by Preiser, Rabinowitz & White (1988), and the approach was developed due to the systematic problems identified by years 59

of conducting POEs within the field. According to Preiser & Vischer (2005), these problems included: information that the engineers were never aware of, about how the specific building would be used; changes that the users or organization made to the building or space after occupancy and that the architect was unaware of and never designed for; or the facilities’ management staff being unaware of how to operate the often very technical and complicated building systems. BPE is a feedback and evaluation approach to every phase of the building process; from planning and design, through construction to occupancy (which also includes conducting a POE), and finally, adaptive reuse or recycling. The goal of the approach is to ensure systematic application of feedback, from ongoing evaluations, throughout the process and thus to enhance the building’s quality for the end-users (Mallory-Hill et al., 2012; Preiser & Vischer, 2005/2015). The improved building quality that the approach strives to achieve, is realized by including a wider range of decision-makers and stakeholders and thus enabling more informed design assumptions, decisions, and solutions. BPE is multidisciplinary and generates applied research, which, according to Preiser & Vischer (2005), used to lack a coherent theoretical framework within the POE as a stand-alone process. Through the BPE process, actual performance is compared to expected performance with the goal of systematically relating the environmental needs of the users to the settings and buildings they work or live in. Preiser & Vischer (ibid.) notes that the result of this earlier inclusion in the process is that the evaluation results of previous POEs are made relevant much earlier in the design process, but are also applied throughout the building’s delivery and life-cycle. According to Preiser & Schramm (2012), the benefits of taking a performance based approach to building design through the application of the BPE framework, include “better quality of the built environment; greater comfort and a more satisfactory experience in visiting, using, or working in a facility; improved staff morale; improved productivity; and significant cost savings” (p. 30). BPE contains several different and unstandardized POE methods and there has been much debate over whether to standardize the method or to let it remain building, user and context specific. An example of a standardized evaluation method is the Building-In-Use assessment (BIU). The BIU assessment survey was developed as a POE method (see Vischer, 1989; 1996) and is set up to measure seven (supposedly) key environmental conditions, so-called comfort conditions. These conditions are: air quality; thermal comfort; spatial comfort; privacy; lighting quality and visual comfort; office noise control; and building noise control. The only two conditions somewhat related to social aspects of working in an office environment are privacy (the intentional withdrawal from others) and office noise control. This widely used method, however, contains little reference to the social aspect of living and working in buildings. Building Evaluation As mentioned above, lot of excellent work has been done in recent decades in order to develop viable evaluation methods and to ensure that there are opportunities for relevant knowledge to be fed back into future design projects. The development of first Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) (Preiser et al., 1988/2015) 60

and later Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) (Preiser & Shramm, 1997; Preiser & Vischer, 2005/2015; and Mallory-Hill et al., 2012) has been undertaken in order to aid the creation of more humane and well-functioning buildings for the end-user, more sustainable user-building interactions, and buildings that fit the organization in question and thus help to create optimal work-flows, productivity, and employee retention. However, with a primary focus on technical and maintenance issues, as well as space requirements and general user satisfaction, there are important areas of life in the built environment that still need to be evaluated in order to gain a truly holistic picture of human life in the built environment. These areas include social behavior patterns among the users and the opportunities the built environment offers in terms of social interactions, collaborations, informal meetings, and a positive social climate. With the rise of easy access to knowledge and information in many different types of organizations, it is imperative to provide well-functioning buildings that support social interactions and collaborative activities. Often completely absent from building evaluations, a social interaction perspective has yet to be incorporated into the building performance evaluation process. With a focus on social interactions among employees, this chapter takes a non-traditional approach to building evaluation by expanding the areas considered necessary and important to evaluate. Following this line of thought, the argument is to enable the design of increasingly more humane buildings by emphasizing the need to include within a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evaluation, how it performs in relation to social climate, employee interactions, and collaboration. To that end, this dissertation presents an affordance-based evaluation method of social interactions in three case-study work environments (see Part 3). Through this method, the areas traditionally evaluated within POE and BPE are expanded, thereby creating a more holistic picture of how well buildings live up to modern-day demands regarding collaboration and team-based work.

Social Perspectives in Building Evaluation

In the first edition of Assessing Building Performance (2005), Preiser and Vischer state that BPE “links diverse phenomena that influence relationships between people, processes and their surroundings, including the physical, social and cultural environments” (p. 4). However, evaluations of building performance in relation to social behaviors, such as collaboration, informal interactions, and communication, are generally only included in evaluations of innovative office spaces (see Hodulak, 2012 and Kato et al., 2005 for evaluations of collaborative behavior of office workers in innovative offices). The focus on social interactions appears to be rather limited within other types of building evaluations, where little attention is given to the social interaction aspects of the everyday life of the users within the evaluated settings. However, based on the human condition as social co-habitants, the social interaction aspect is an important evaluation feature in any building or designed environment. Social interactions are not simply higher order aspects in a ‘Maslowian’ sense. Rather, social interactions, collaborations, and a positive social climate are crucial aspects of productivity and efficiency on the one hand, and of employee satisfaction, stress related issues, and social inclusiveness on the other. As such, social interaction aspects are related to both organization and employees, and should be included in any evaluation of building performance. This point is also made by Windsor (2005/2015), who argues for the necessity of including a social-organizational perspective into all stages of building performance evaluation. An Increasing Social Focus As mentioned above, in the building evaluation literature, projects working within an interaction and collaboration oriented framework are limited to evaluations of innovative office environments. Within other areas of the building evaluation field, however, social aspects of evaluations are generally related to the social space aspects commonly focused on within the broader field of environmental psychology, such as personal distance, crowding and territoriality, as well as 62

aspects related to distances between users and specific spaces or amenities. In a chronological literature review conducted of the six major contributions to POE and BPE published during the last 3 decades (see Preiser et al., 1988;

Baird et al., 1996; Federal Facilities Council, 2001; Preiser & Vischer, 2005; Mallory-Hill et al., 2012 and Preiser et al., 2015), three different categories of social aspects were found (see Figure 1).

These categories consist of a total of 102 different types of social aspects mentioned (see Table 1). Where newer editions were available, first editions have intentionally been chosen for this literature review in order to be able to track the development related to the focus on social interactions over time.

Social Space Aspects

Social Interaction Aspects

Social Aspects of Design and Evaluation

Figure 1: The three social aspect categories used in building evaluation literature.

For the sake of clarifying the social aspects used in the evaluation literature, the aspects have been divided into three categories: 1. Social Space Aspects, divided into distance related aspects and spaces designated for interactions, refer to the individual centered nature of the experience of being more than one person in an environment, as well as the availability of spaces. 2. Social Interaction Aspects, divided into aspects regarding interactions and collaboration, informal interactions, and social climate, refer to the social interactional behavior taking place between two or more individuals in the environment, and 3. Social Aspects of Design and Evaluation refer to both direct evaluation methods and considerations on the one hand, and the societal aspects that affect design and evaluation thinking on the other (see Table 1).

General Space Related Aspects 1. Proxemity 2. Personal Space 3. Territory 4. Crowding 5. Density 6. Privacy 7. Visual Privacy 8. Visual Contact 9. Auditory Privacy 10. Acoustical Separation 11. Telephone Privacy 12. Work Privacy 13. Private Setting 14. Isolation 15. Solitude 16. Separation Spaces for Interactions 17. Informal Spaces 18. Availability of Conference Room 19. Informal Meeting Areas 20. Places for Social Exchange 21. Shared Facilities 22. Collaborative Workspaces 23. Informal Workspaces 24. Places that Support Encounters 25. Common Space 26. Informal Social Interaction Space 27. Gathering Places 28. Meeting Space

Social Interaction Aspects Interaction & Collaboration 29. Communication 30. Social Interaction 31. Meeting 32. Interaction Needs 33. Communication Behavior 34. Interactional Behavior 35. Social Networks 36. Interruptions 37. Group Work 38. Collaboration 39. Information Exchange 40. Team Work 41. Team-Oriented 42. Collaborative Work 43. Formal Meetings Informal Interactions 44. Potential for Socializing 45. Opportunities for Conversing 46. Socializing 47. Informal Contacts 48. Spontaneous Interactions 49. Informal Communication 50. Spontaneous Meetings 51. Informal Meetings 52. Social Contacts 53. Informal Collaborations 54. Meeting Opportunities 55. Opportunities to sit together to socialize 56. Chance Meetings 57. Gathering 58. Chatting and Speaking 59. Facilitate Contact 60. Playing Social Climate 61. Social Relationship 62. Social Climate 63. Sociological Well-Being 64. Social Aspects of User Satisfaction 65. Interpersonal Relations 66. Group Membership 67. Social Well-Being 68. Social Context 69. Inclusiveness 70. Social Experience 71. Connectivity 72. Conflict 73. Social Satisfaction 74. Social Appropriateness 75. Social Order 76. Social Environment 77. Social Needs 78. Social Networks 79. Social Purpose 80. Social Tension 81. Social Pressure 82. Supervision/Observation 83. Social Sustainability

Social Aspects of Design and Evaluation 84. Social Aspects of Building Evaluation 85. Social Criteria for Building Assessment 86. Social Organizational Implications of Design 87. Social Implications of Design 88. Social Features of the Environment 89. Psycho-Social Variables 90. Socio-Psychological Concepts 91. Social Performance of Buildings 92. Social Influence on Space 93. Social-Psychological Processes 94. Socio-Behavioral Aspects 95. Social Construction of Architecture 96. Social Consequences of Design 97. Social Evaluation 98. Social Analysis 99. Socio-Critical Evaluations 100. Social Benefits of Design 101. Social Value of Design 102. Social Condition of Environment 103. Sociopetality vs. Sociofugality 104. Socio-Cultural Context 105. Societal Aspects 106. Social Concerns 107. Socio-Cultural Criteria 108. Sociological Content 109. Sociological Dimension 110. Social Challenges of Architecture 111. Socially Conscious 112. Social Purpose 113. Social Foundation of Milieus 114. Social Justice 115. Social Equity 116. Socio-Cultural Realm 117. Social Factors 118. Building as Social System

Table 1: The three social space aspect categories of terms used within the building evaluation literature.

Social Space Aspects

In the conducted literature review, a total of 411 entries mentioning any of these social aspects were found within the six publications, and these were then categorized under the three above-mentioned social aspect categories. Out of these, 121 were categorized as social space aspects, 214 as social interaction aspects, and 76 as social aspects of design and evaluation (see Figure 2).

Social Space Aspects Social Interaction Aspects Social Aspects of Design & Evaluation 0

100

150

200

Figure 2: The 411 word entries of six major POE/BPE publications categorized under the three social aspect categories.

Preiser et al., 1988 Baird et al., 1996 Fed. Facil. Council, 2001 Preiser & Vischer, 2005 Mallory-Hill et al., 2012 Preiser et al., 2015 0

Figure 3: The different social aspects and their frequency within the evaluation literature.

Furthermore, the entries under each category were then correlated to the specific publication, showing a development in the use of, and focus on, social aspects within the reviewed evaluation publications over time (See Figure 3). It is interesting to note that, despite a limited focus on social behavior within building evaluations, recent publications exhibit at least some indications of the beginnings of a heightened interest in a social interaction perspective. When categorizing the various contributions to these major publications within the evaluation field, it becomes evident that however limited the focus on social interaction aspects might be, it does seem to be increasing. Comparing the early POE publications to the BPE publications, there is a significant increase 65

in authors mentioning aspects relating to social behavior and how to design for these aspects of life in the built environment (see Figure 3). While the focus among space-related aspects decreases from the first to the fifth publication, there is a general increase in the number of social interaction aspects mentioned. One exception, as Figure 4 shows, is Baird et al. (1996), who provide an early focus on social interactional aspects within building evaluation. However, this focus seems to disappear again, only to reappear in an increasing fashion in the latest reviewed publication within the field. Moreover, there is only a very limited focus on the social aspects of design and evaluation throughout the first five publications, but his increases dramatically in the latest publication reviewed. This latest publication (Preiser et al., 2015) generally displays an increased focus on all three social space aspects (see Figure 3). In relation to an increased focus on social interaction aspects within evaluation literature and practice, Mallory-Hill and Westlund (2012), who refer to investigations by Heerwagen and Wise (1998), Heerwagen and Zagreus (2005), and Pyke et al. (2010), note that: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Other variables that are suspected to play a role in perceived satisfaction include aspects of design that enhance social experience, aesthetics and beautyâ&#x20AC;? (Mallory-Hill & Westlund, 2012, p. 175). Furthermore, the later publications include several chapters that are at least partially focused on social interactions. This seems to verify the observed development towards a somewhat more socially oriented focus within the field of building evaluation. However, it is sometimes unclear what is meant by social experience or social behavior in evaluation-method descriptions. In many contributions to building performance evaluation, the social interaction aspect is limited to the mere existence of collaborative space, or distances to formal or informal meeting areas, rather than to interactive behavior patterns and observations. Furthermore, except for the previously mentioned investigations by Hodulak (2012) and Kato et al. (2005), the existing social aspects within building evaluations are rarely evaluated in situ, but instead through a very limited part of otherwise interesting and relevant POE surveys. From One Dimensional to Holistic The social space aspects, traditionally the focus of both environmental psychology and the evaluation literature, include distance to others in the form of personal space, territoriality, and privacy among others. Although they are important aspects of a humane environment, the social space aspects often constitute the entire social aspect of environmental psychology publications. As a result, research within the field generally has an underlying basis in the physical aspect of the socio-physical environment and often deploys an individual perspective, rather than a social one. The focus is on individual perceptions and experiences related to the distance to others. This becomes a one-dimensional perspective that disregards the interactions that constitute the basis for human cohabitation within the surrounding physical environment. What is needed is not only a broad focus on social aspects and social interactional behavior in building evaluations, but also that this focus is placed on observed and situated, context-specific social behavior. To that end, one aim 66

of this dissertation is to combine existing evaluation methods with an ecological perspective on in situ social interactions within the built environment. In the following chapters, a tripartite case-study concerning everyday social interactions in three different work environments will be presented analyzed and discussed from within a situated, affordance for sociality-based framework. The focus here will be on how particular spaces, architectural elements and socio-material circumstances afford particular actions and interactions among the users of the buildings in question.

Part 3

Investigating Everyday Social Life in the Built Environment

“...hybrid methods and vocabularies will transform our understanding of built environments and the complicated social, natural and cultural systems in which they always already find themselves immersed” — Friedman, 2015

Investigation Methods

In this chapter I present the methods used in the investigations of social interactional activities among employees in three work environments, presented in the subsequent chapter. These methods have been developed specifically to study the situated social interactions afforded by the design of the built environments in question. The analysis of the findings will initially be presented in relation to the overall study of the three investigated buildings and subsequently to the staircase as a specific spatial element. In architectural practice, the ability to create settings that enable good and desirable social interactions is often treated as a given. Different spatial elements, such as informal meeting spaces and staircases, are considered instrumental in affecting social interactional behavior among users (Houthoofd, 2015; Pasternack, 2009; 3XN, 2010 & 2007) , and generally, modern, visually transparent and open-spaced work environments are expected to lead directly to more social interactions and knowledge-sharing among users and employees (Maher and von Hippel, 2005; 3XN, 2010). â&#x20AC;&#x153;A basic research goal for studies of situated action [â&#x20AC;Ś] is to explicate the relationship between structures of action and the resources and constraints afforded by physical and social circumstancesâ&#x20AC;? Suchman, 1987:179

Investigation Objectives The first objective of these investigations is to expand the aspects traditionally evaluated in Post-occupancy studies to also encompass the everyday social interactions of building users. Through the evaluations of social interactions in three case-study buildings, the aim is to analyze the opportunities the built environment offers in terms of social interactional behavior among the users. This knowledge is then used in order to compare the design intents of the architects regarding social interactional behavior in the settings with the everyday life of the employees inhabiting them. 71

The second objective is to develop social building evaluation methods that are directly applicable to architectural practice. Due to the time, project, and funding constraints that are an ever-present part of architectural practice, the evaluation methods developed and applied in this study attempt to adhere to these constraints. This approach to the investigation is adopted in order to benefit practice-based architectural research, and to aid the creation of humane environments. “…hybrid methods and vocabularies will transform our understanding of built environments and the complicated social, natural and cultural systems in which they always already find themselves immersed” Friedman, 2015:143

A Multi-Method Approach When evaluating social behavior in the built environment, it is advantageous to apply a multi-method approach that combines existing evaluation methods with an ecological perspective on in situ social interactions within the setting, and thus creates knowledge regarding actual, everyday social interactions among users. In addition, a foundation within focused ethnography ensures that the overall evaluation method is commensurable with the time constraints of architectural practice, and thus viable and useful in practice. The investigations presented take the form of a focused ethnographic field study targeting social interaction among employees in three different casestudy buildings: Tangen Polytechnic School (Norway), Stadshuis Nieuwegein (the Netherlands) and Ørestad High school (Denmark), all of which were designed by the Danish architect firm, 3XN Architects. The overall study consists of preliminary observations, field notes, participant observations, semi-structured interviews, photographic and video-based recordings, and activity mapping (see Table 2). All material was collected during one intense period of data collection for two consecutive weeks on site in each of the buildings. The data collection consists of preliminary observations of the building in question and the general user behavior patterns within it, informant observations with each informant for one full day in the building, and a more formal, semi-structured interview with each informant. In addition, a form of activity mapping was carried out, and photographic and video recordings were made when these were considered useful (see Table 2). The approach to evaluating social behavior patterns and interactions within the situated, ecological framework presented here does not include carrying out a traditional POE or BPE, but rather a qualitative exploration and investigation of how social behavior can be evaluated and included in practice-oriented building evaluation methods.

Building Observations

Informant observations

Observations of building and general user activity patterns

Observations of the activity patterns of each informant during a workday

— To provide knowledge before informant observations

— To determine where informants engage in social interactions

— To inform interview guide

— To understand reasons for choosing certain places for interaction

Semi-structured Interviews Interviews with each informant — To gain in-depth understanding of reasons behind observed social activity patterns and use of building

Activity Mapping Individual and place centered Activity Mapping of informants — To determine the different types of social interactions in the spaces

— To gain information about informants experiences in the building

— To understand relationship between material and social contexts of the space

Photographic Recordings

Video Recordings

Photographic recording of spaces and interactions

Video recording of specific and complicated settings

— To visualize the interaction types in different areas

— To determine the social use of crowded environments

— To visualize the design of different areas

— To analyze types of interactions in the setting

Table 2: The mixed-methods used in the focused ethnographic field investigations.

Focused Ethnography In traditional ethnography, the researcher is expected to engage in prolonged field engagements as well as to enter the setting in question without preconceptions or specific foci on particular topics or areas of interest. As such, the classic ethnographic field study casts a wide net and uses the vast amounts of diverse information to detect unexpected or neglected issues. The considerable time and resources required for this type of field work, focusing on participant observations, makes the method unfeasible for commercial practice, and hence “ethnography has long since slipped out from under the anthropological tent” (Wolcott, 1999, p.42). According to Wall (2015), applied ethnography with pre-formulated questions, is increasingly used across different practice oriented disciplines, and Popov (Popov, 2016) states that practice-based researchers use these emerging forms of ethnography to capture situations in the field and embed them in the context of the overall social environment. Focused ethnography is a feasible method for commercial practice, where project time and resources are insufficient for years of in-depth field work. The focused method narrows the scope of the field study by reducing observation time, as well as by entering the field with a specific focus informed by background knowledge about the setting in question (Wall, 2015). Thus, the method is an attempt to comply with both the epistemological requirements of ethnography on the one hand, and the constraints of applied projects on the other. Apart from the differences in time spent and the existence of background knowledge about the investigated setting, traditional and focused ethnography also differs in terms of the status of the observer. Traditionally, the method applied in ethnographic studies is one of participant observations. In focused studies, however, the observer engages in an obvious role, often using recording technology and cameras. This means that there is no risk of ‘going native’, but instead, perhaps, of changing the behaviors of the observed users, although there is quite a lot of debate on this topic. According to Knoblauch (2005), focused ethnography characterizes selected, specified and focused aspects of a certain field or setting. Unlike the long-term field studies common in anthropology, focused ethnography studies are short-ranged and not necessarily continual. Instead of being time intensive, focused ethnographic studies are typically data and analysis-intensive, producing large amounts of data within a relatively short time-frame. In focused ethnography, research interests also differ from that of classical ethnography. As such, classical ethnography focuses on social groups, institutions, and events, whereas focused ethnography is more concerned with actions, interactions, and social situations (See Knoblauch, 2005; Wall, 2015). Obtaining Background Knowledge The necessary background knowledge regarding the three investigated buildings and the design intents related to these settings has been obtained through working as an integrated part of 3XN Architects for the duration of the PhD studies. At the studio, tasks such as writing prequalification material, conducting internal employee surveys, and giving speeches and lectures on design intentions and outcomes, meant that it was possible to get intimate, everyday knowledge about 74

the work and design practices of the firm. Being a part of the day-to-day practice in the studio resulted in a vast amount of background knowledge on general design processes and design intentions, in easy access to relevant architects to interview, as well as specific knowledge and anecdotes related to the three case-study buildings. This made possible a focused ethnographic study of the three case-study buildings, all designed by 3XN Architects.

The Case Studies

Affordances for Situated Interactions: Three Northern European Work Environments The following chapter presents the empirical investigations and evaluations undertaken in three case-study buildings; ‘Tangen Polytechnic’ located in Kristiansand, Norway; ‘Nieuwegein City Hall’ outside the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands; and ‘Ørestad High school’, in Copenhagen, Denmark. The three case-study buildings are all designed by the Danish architect firm, 3XN Architects. Although varying in use and user groups, the three chosen case-study buildings exhibit fundamental similarities related to the intentions and beliefs prevalent within the firm’s design tradition: open, transparent spaces; communication opportunities through visual contact between the floors; and chance meetings in the open atrium and on the central staircase. As such, all three buildings are built with floors that open up towards an atrium with a central, connecting staircase. All other functions are placed around the atriums. Furthermore, the three buildings are all public buildings, spanning two schools and a combined city hall, library and social services building. The use of the three buildings allowed for them all to be investigated as work environments, focusing on the employees as the main user group of interest. Before presenting the case-study buildings, however, I will give a brief introduction to 3XN Architects. Introducing the Architect 3XN Architects was founded as Nielsen, Nielsen and Nielsen in Aarhus in 1986, but is now a Copenhagen-based practice. 3XN Architects is an internationally renowned architectural practice, which has a “firm grounding in the Danish design tradition with emphasis on daylight, spatial complexity and the design of informal gathering spaces” (Peters, 2013:21). Rather than designing prestige buildings, “the studio is concerned with all of the things around a building, how people use spaces, movement through the building and views inwards and outwards” (ibid.). 76

The firm’s first international breakthrough came with the design of the Danish embassy in Berlin in 1998. Since then, the firm has designed world renowned buildings, such as The Blue Planet aquarium in Copenhagen, the Frederiksberg Courthouse, and Ørestad High school, which I will return to below. The Innovation Unit 3XN works with the understanding that “contemporary challenges call for solutions that cut across traditional professional boundaries, not to reduce the scope of architecture, but in fact to extend it and thereby expand the concept of architecture itself” (3XN, 2010:7). In 2007, the firm established GXN, an innovation unit that investigates sustainability aspects of the built environment, including those aspects related to social sustainability. Design philosophy 3XN Architects have an explicit commitment to the common good and they work under the stated belief that ‘Architecture Shapes Behavior’. Despite the rather deterministic sound of this statement, the firm’s view of the role they play in the overall relationship between building and users is not a deterministic one, but rather is defined by a “pragmatic approach informed by pragmatic reflections on human well-being” (3XN, 2013:7). ‘Architecture Shapes Behavior’, therefore, is not to be understood in a deterministic manner, but rather in the sense that “human behavior in relation to physical space will always be the main point of departure for 3XN’s architectural endeavors” (3XN, 2010:7). In describing what he would like to be remembered for as an architect, 3XN Principal, Kim Herforth Nielsen answers that “I think that what is important is to have created architecture that influences human behavior; enhances interaction and positive meetings between people” (3XN & Cainer, 2007:295). 3XN’s design philosophy is to create designs that increase meetings and interactions among the users. One of the ways this is achieved is by applying a three-dimensional design approach to the design from the beginning of the design process. The buildings are thought of in terms of their ability to afford vertical visibility from one floor to another. This is achieved through the design of central, open atria with connecting staircases, but also, as is evident in the design of for example Nieuwegein City Hall that will be introduced below, by a rotation of the floorplans in a fan-like manner (see Figure 10). In a recently stated commitment to becoming increasingly research-based, the practice is now intending to focus on validating design decisions and solutions by engaging in the evaluation of prior projects and thus informing the design process. I will return to these aspects and the related methods and considerations in Part 4. In the following sections, I will present the buildings investigated in the case-studies of this thesis. These building descriptions are based on three sources: 3XN Architect’s own descriptions, my first impressions of the buildings, and how the users have described these during my investigations. 77

Case Study 1

Tangen Polytechnic

Figure 4: Tangen Polytechnic, Norway, exterior view. ©Adam Mørk & 3XN.

ADDRESS Tangen 21, Kristiansand

CLIENT Vest Agder Fylkeskommune FUNCTION School

FLOOR AREA 17,300 m² YEAR 2009

3XN’s Description Unity across Disciplines Tangen VGS is beautifully situated just south of the renaissance quarter of Kristiansand with an open view to the Otra River. The school assembles a number of education lines, including hotel and nourishment, design, media and communication and construction courses, both practical and theoretical. Earlier these facilities were widely spread, so it was a target for the new school building to bring different education cultures together to form a unity that encourages cross-over contacts. The Plait A clear and simple design strategy defines the building: A plait. Two sets of double stories are pushed together to form a central area with normal floor height. The double height parts are used for workshop activities, while the central part houses theory classrooms etc. In the center of the building, a large circular atrium cuts through the building from ground floor to glass roof, connecting all floors. The two-sided design of the building discretely handles the bending of the site, and at both sides of the building, large parable openings invite by-passers to get an impression of the activities inside. Flexible and Recognizable The direct distribution to the school’s various sections makes it possible to open and close parts of the school. Outside normal school hours it is possible to use the auditorium for lectures or evening classes and the foyer for public meetings and events. The façade is of dichroic glass causing an array of colors to be displayed in the glass and giving the school a unique expression. (See 3xn.dk) My Description and First Impression At Tangen Polytechnic, one walks from the entrance area with rather low ceilings into the atrium space with its staircases crisscrossing the atrium space above. Apart from the very open, almost atrium-like space of the cafeteria located out towards the river, the rest of the building contains more traditionally closed classrooms and work-rooms used by the teachers. Apart from the atrium staircase, the building also has two sets of closed staircases, both placed at opposite sides of the open atrium space. Both students and faculty can use any of the three available staircases. In addition, a staircase linking the cafeteria with the floor above runs along the wall at the farthest side of the cafeteria. The building simultaneously appears both open and closed due to the combination of traditional classrooms and the large, open, and visually transparent common areas. User Description An art teacher describes how the building is too bright when they want to show the students images on the projector in the arts department. Instead, they must move to a more traditional classroom to do so, which steals away time from 79

their teaching. Also, the art teacher informs me that there is not enough room for each student to have his or her own table to work at in the arts department, which makes it difficult to engage the students in projects. On the other hand, however, the art teacher informs me that because the school is so bright and open, it does not seem like there are 1,000 students in the building. A couple of other users think that it is nice that the common areas are bright and open, but that it seems ridiculous to have excessive ceiling heights, when there is not enough room on the floor for tables and students. However, Tangen Polytechnic now houses approximately 120 more students than it was originally designed for.

Figure 5: Tangen Polytechnic, Norway, interior view. ÂŠAdam MĂ¸rk & 3XN.

Figure 6: Isometric model 1 of Tangen Polytechnic.

Figure 7: Isometric model 2 of Tangen Polytechnic.

Figure 8: Ground Floor.

Figure 9: First Floor.

Figure 10: Second Floor.

Figure 11: Third Floor.

Figure 12: Fourth Floor.

Figure 13: Fifth Floor.

Case Study 2

Stadshuis Nieuwegein

Figure 14: Stadshuis Nieuwegein, Netherlands, exterior view. ©Adam Mørk & 3XN.

ADDRESS Nieuwegein, Utrecht

CLIENT Nieuwegein Municipality

FUNCTION Multi-functional City Hall FLOOR AREA 25,000 m² YEAR 2012

3XN’s Description A Multi-functional House The ‘Stadshuis’ - City Hall - of Nieuwegein mix traditional city hall features of offices and service with a library, a multi-cultural centre, and commercial facilities. In this way, the city hall becomes a part of the everyday life of the town. This creates life in the building all day and strengthens the connection to the commercial and residential area surrounding the building. Ties the City Together A modern participatory democracy requires transparency and communication at eye level in the encounter between citizen and authority. This has been a guideline for the design of a building which appears open towards the city. The city hall functions as an important part of the densification of the city centre and aims to tie the complex context together - but always with great respect of the neighbouring buildings. Democratic Institution with Space for Interaction The five floors spread out like a fan and open up towards the atrium, allowing the building’s visitors and employees to visually connect with what is happening on the other floors. The different levels are connected by an open winding staircase. Rotation of the floor plans allows the visitors a wide view from one floor to the next all the way up and down through the building. (See 3xn.dk) My Description and First Impression The building is open, with visual contact between floors and across the atrium space, including the central staircase. The staircase, however, only runs to the 4th floor. Regarding the office floors, on the 3rd, 5th and 6th floors of the building, only the 3rd floor has usable, open space out towards the atrium that is not used for office space. This is used as a common area with arrangements of tables and chairs, both outside the ‘support desk’, and next to the 3rd floor office space that is enclosed by glass walls. On the 5th and 6th floors, the office spaces, which are closed off to the public, extend all the way out to the atrium railing, thus leaving no space for common areas as seen on the 3rd floor. In addition, these floors have no access to the central staircase, or the central elevator placed by this staircase. User Description Users state that they like the fact that the building is ‘bright and airy’ and that they ‘love the transparency’ of the overall building. Some users describe liking how efficient the building is in terms of space efficiency and the low number of printers needed in the open office spaces. However, users also mention that noise travels occasionally and that about half of the employees were unsatisfied with the indoor climate and sun screens after having worked in the building for almost one year.

Figure 15: Stadshuis Nieuwegein, Netherlands, interior view. ÂŠAdam MĂ¸rk & 3XN.

Figure 6: Isometric model 1 of Nieuwegein City Hall.

Figure 7: Isometric model 2 of Nieuwegein City Hall.

Figure 18: First Floor.

Figure 19: Second Floor.

Figure 20: Third Floor.

Figure 21: Fourth Floor.

Figure 22: Fifth Floor.

Figure 23: Sixth Floor.

Case Study 3

Ørestad College

Figure 24: Ørestad College, Denmark, interior view. ©Adam Mørk & 3XN.

ADDRESS Ørestads Boulevard 75, 2300 København S

CLIENT Municipality of Copenhagen/Undervisnings- og Bygningsstyrelsen FUNCTION College

FLOOR AREA 12,000 m² YEAR 2007

3XN’s Description New Visions Ørestad Gymnasium (Ørestad College) is the first college in Denmark based on the new visions of content, subject matter, organisation and learning systems in the reform of the educational system of the Danish “high-school” (gymnasium) for students of the age of 16-19. New Ways of Learning Communication, interaction and synergy have been key issues. The project displays a visionary interpretation of openness and flexibility regarding team sizes, varying from the individual over groups to classes and assemblies, and reflects international tendencies aiming at achieving a more dynamic and life-like studying environment and introducing IT as a main tool. The intention is also to enforce the students’ abilities gradually to take responsibility for own learning, being able to work in teams as well as working individually. Simple and Flexible The college is interconnected vertically and horizontally. Four boomerang shaped floor plans are rotated to create the powerful super structure which forms the overall frame of the building – simple and highly flexible. Four study zones occupy one floor plan each. Avoiding level changes makes the organizational flexibility as high as possible, and enables the different teaching and learning spaces to overlap and interact with no distinct borders. The rotation opens a part of each floor to the vertical tall central atrium and forms a zone that provides community and expresses the college’s ambition for interdisciplinary education. (See 3xn.dk) My Description and First Impression Ørestad High school has an open layout with very few traditional classrooms. The building has three sets of closed staircases and two elevators, all of which are only accessible to faculty and staff members, as well as the large central staircase combining all floors through the open atrium space. The upper secondary school was intended for approximately 600 pupils, divided between three different grades, but now has to accommodate nearly 1,200. The central staircase is the only way for the students to move around in the building. The open atrium space surrounding the staircase has a high degree of visual transparency due to the open design of the banisters surrounding the space on all floors. While I wait for my contact person to arrive, many students are arriving and walking up the central staircase right next to me. They are talking to each other, and some are teasing each other in a friendly manner. A teacher walks up the staircase and makes a comment about the nice weather to a small group of students. On each floor, students are gathering out towards the atrium railing, looking down over the staircase and all the people on it.

User Description “I like this building here. When I ride over here in the morning and see the building from the outside, I look at it and think: ‘What a funny cube’, but I know it houses a whole lot of things, and a lot of angles, and a lot of smaller places where little social rooms develop that I associate with something positive. That makes a difference, and it makes me happy to be here” (Ørestad, Informant 2).

Figure 25: Ørestad College, Denmark, exterior view. ©Adam Mørk & 3XN.

Figure 26: Ground Floor.

Figure 29: Third Floor.

Figure 27: First Floor.

Figure 30: Fourth Floor.

Figure 28: Second Floor.

Figure 31: Isometric model of Ă&#x2DC;restad High school.

Procedure and Participants

Gaining Access As an employee of 3XN Architects, the firm responsible for the design of the three case buildings, full access to these was rather easily obtained. It should be noted, however, that one other building was initially considered as a part of the study, but access was denied on grounds of security concerns. Participants The study sample consists of informant observations, activity mapping, and formal interviews with 21 employees divided evenly between the three case-study buildings. In addition, a couple of other persons of interest were interviewed throughout the process. These include the principal and a cafeteria employee at Tangen Polytechnic. Prior to commencement of the investigations in each of the buildings, the administration in question forwarded an email to the employees informing them of the nature and purpose of the study and asking persons interested in participation to submit their name to the management. When possible, a total of 7 participants in each building were randomly chosen. All informants were subsequently contacted in order to schedule a suitable day for their participation. However, at Ă&#x2DC;restad High school, whose employees are quite used to research investigations and journalists visiting and writing about the school, only 5 employees signed up to participate beforehand. Here, the investigations were commenced with these participants, and the remaining informants were added along the way, by employees showing interest in the project or having something they wanted me to know about the building and then agreeing to become participants.

Investigation Methods

Building Observations In each of the three buildings, the 2-week investigations were initiated with two days of preliminary observations of both the physical aspects of the building and its layout and functions, but also of general behavior patterns among the users. All observations were noted down in field notes on-site throughout the two days. These observations included walking tours of the building initiated by the respective contact persons at Tangen Polytechnic and Stadshuis Nieuwegein, where the person would introduce me to the entire building. At Ă&#x2DC;restad High school, however, all preliminary building observations were conducted on my own. These preliminary observations served as a familiarization with the building in question and the different activities and movement patterns within it. Informant Observations The observational role deployed in these investigations is one of participant-as-observer (Ackroyd & Hughes, 1992). Due to the nature of the topics investigated, there was no need to conceal the research role, or remain in the background. Informants and other users were welcoming of my presence and the interest shown in their building, by what they seemed to perceive to be a representative of the architects responsible for its design. In the role of participant-as-observer, the users and informants were all informed about my presence and the purpose of the investigations. This role enabled contact with users who were not informants, as they would often approach me with perceptions, stories or anecdotes about the building. As mentioned before, this also allowed for relatively easy recruitment of any additional informants. The informant observations allowed the gathering of knowledge about the actual everyday social activity patterns of the informants during their work day. This knowledge on activity patterns, types of interactions, and places these occur, is supplemented with the conversations that arise throughout the day with each informant. This produced valuable insights into the everyday life of the building in question. 97

Suchman (2001) argues that: â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is by following the movement of specific artifacts through time and space that the place of things in the constitution of human activity can be investigatedâ&#x20AC;? (p. 165). I would argue, however, that in the case of artifacts, such as buildings, which cannot be moved around as a part of the everyday activities of persons, this method might be applied the opposite way around. As such, it would entail following the persons around through time and space, and thus investigating the place of the building, and its different spatial elements, in the constitution of the activities among the informants. The role of participant observer enables contact with users who are not informants, as the visible nature of the role, combined with days spent in different departments and areas of the building, allows users the opportunity to approach the researcher regarding their perceptions, stories, or anecdotes about the building. In addition, this visible presence within the setting allows for relatively easy recruitment of any additional informants needed. Field Notes During the days of informant observations, field notes were produced on site throughout each day of observation. These field notes take the form of summaries of conversations with the informant, his or her thoughts about or experiences in the building, as well as any stories he or she would like to tell about the building or the everyday life within it. Field notes from both building and informant observations were written down in the form of thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) on-site throughout each day of observation. During the informant observations, this task was carried out whenever the informant would sit down at his or her desk to work, or when they entered a formal meeting. With each informant, I made sure to either sit in the workroom, office or office area with them if they invited me to do so, and if any workspaces were available. If not, I would find a place to sit, where I would have a good view to the informant and his or her immediate surroundings, without being in a direct line of sight for the informant in question. This would mostly be about 10-15 meters from the informant, so as to interfere as little as possible with the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workday and sense of privacy. The activity of writing down the field notes while informants were working at their desks proved useful in several ways. Firstly, it allowed for the registration of very recent or simultaneous events related to both informant observations and the activities happening in the surrounding environment. This resulted in the registration and initial analysis of very diverse activities and thoughts. Secondly, the activity of writing meant that the informants, who would often be apologetic about sitting still at their desks to work, and thus feeling that they were less interesting to observe, would be put at ease by seeing that I was occupied. Activity Mapping Detailed recordings were noted down regarding where the informant would go within the building, how he or she would get there, where and with whom conversations were struck up or greetings exchanged, as well as the social or 98

work-related nature of these interactions. These individual centered activity mappings were carried out during the participant observations. Activity mapping, or what is generally termed ‘Behavioral Mapping’ within environmental psychology is used to systematically register people’s locations, actions and movements within a setting or area, as well as how they distribute themselves within it (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). As an empirical document, the ‘behavior map’ illustrates where specific forms of activity occur, and is often used in the field of environmental psychology in order to establish if the activity plans for a given space actually occur as intended. Two types of activity or behavioral mapping are used within environmental design research: one is Place Centered Mapping and the other is Individual-Centered Mapping (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Place-centered mapping is a static activity, where the observer is located in a specific place or room, in order to observe the activities of the particular site. Individual-centered mapping, as the term reveals, is instead focused on how a particular individual uses different places within a given setting. The method of activity mapping applied here includes a form of individual-centered mapping, focusing specifically on social interactions. A simple diagram allows the recording of where and with whom informants engage in social interactions during the observation day, as well as the social or work-related nature of these interactions. Since individual-centered activity mapping necessitates following particular informants across time and location, the method proved well-suited as an integral part of the informant observations. The insights produced during both informant observations and the individual-centered mapping of social interactions is used to inform the interview guide used for the more formal, semi-structured interviews conducted with each informant during the day of the observation. Interviews The interviews conducted within the three case-study buildings serve as a method to give informants the opportunity to describe reasons for and thoughts about the observed behavior within the building, or as Ackroyd & Hughes (1992) argues, to “collect illustrative material to complement other material and findings” (p. 100). The initial investigation design included ‘walking interviews’ with all the informants. These would have been conducted in the form of field interviews, carried out as an integrated part of the informant observations. This, however, proved impossible, as the informants at both Tangen Polytechnic and Ørestad High school would be on break between classes at the same time as the 1,0001,200 somewhat noisy teenagers. Audio recording of the interviews, therefore, was made impossible in the setting. Instead, the informants were asked to choose a location for the interview, at whatever time would fit best into their workday. This made the interviews more formal in nature than originally planned. As a result, the conducted interviews take the form of semi-structured interviews. The overall structure of the interview guides remained the same for all three buildings, but was altered slightly after each preliminary building observation in order to fit the building in question. In terms of the building-specific versions 99

of the interview guide, however, the questions posed to each informant were also adjusted in order to allow informants to elaborate on specific observations or topics covered throughout the day of informant observation. The questions in the semi-structured interview guides were funneled from more general, narrative-like opener questions related to the informantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; overall view of the building, to more specific questions regarding personal use of and experiences in the building in question. The interview guides contained open-ended questions allowing for an increased richness in response, as well as providing the informants the freedom to respond in whatever form they preferred. In addition, the informants were offered the opportunity to talk about any topic or issue related to the building or their everyday life in it at the end of the interview. The duration of each interview was approximately one hour, depending on the time available to the informant. On a few occasions, informants were only able to find shorter time slots, and the interview would then be divided into two parts conducted at different times during the day of informant observation. All interviews were recorded using a small audio-recording device, and transcribed in order to become available for coding and analysis. Photographic Recordings Photographic recordings of areas, specific rooms, and observed activities and situations were conducted throughout the days of building and informant observations within the three case-study buildings. These photographs are used in two ways. On the one hand, they serve as visualizations in order to be able to return to the settings when in doubt about the layout or design of a certain setting or area. On the other, they serve as visualizations of situations, activities and use of specific places or areas, and as such, they are included in the analysis in combination with field notes, activity maps, and interview transcriptions. Video Recordings Ă&#x2DC;restad High school was the last of the three buildings investigated. During the investigations in the building, it became increasingly apparent that additional investigations related to the social interaction patterns on the central staircase would be fruitful and interesting. Consequently, another layer was added to the investigations, where general behavior patterns and social interactions of both students and faculty on the central staircase were recorded using a small GoPro digital video camcorder mounted on a tripod. The camera was initially placed with a horizontal view of the firstfloor stair landing, in order to observe social interactions on and around the landing. After a few initial recordings, however, the camera was moved to the banister surrounding the second floor, where the vertical view of the first-floor landing, as well as the stairs leading to and from the landing, resulted in a better view of the interactions in the setting Three full hours of recordings were made during three consecutive days, mainly focusing on the peak hours during mid-morning, lunch and afternoon recess. The conducted video-recordings were carried out as in situ observations of everyday social practices in the 100

setting (Petersen et al., 2012) and later transcribed and coded in combination with field notes and interview transcriptions. The combination of the field notes, mapping of social interactions, photographic and video-recordings on the one hand, and the in-depth semi-structured interviews regarding reasons and thoughts related to the observed actual behavior patterns on the other, resulted in a reliable and useful collection of data on the social behavior patterns in the three investigated work environments. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

101

Knowing What Informants Are Talking About

Since the three case-study buildings are placed in Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark respectively, the informant observations and interviews have had to be carried out in different languages. Thus, language affects several of the applied methods in these investigations and plays an important role in relation to the three specific contexts. During the observations and interviews conducted at Tangen Polytechnic in Norway, informants would generally speak Norwegian and I would speak Danish. In some cases, however, informants were unable to understand Danish, and I would therefore switch to Swedish, which to them was perceived as an easier language to understand. In Stadshuis Nieuwegein in the Netherlands, employees (obviously) spoke Dutch. Since this is a language I do not speak or understand, I had to be extra careful in my observations of their social interactions throughout the day. Most of the time, I could discern whether a conversation was work-related or social in nature based on the tone of voice combined with body language and the props used. Work related interactions were easy to spot, when the informants would talk to colleagues while looking at papers or the computer screen together. Social interactions were identified when they would make jokes and laugh while drinking coffee or other similar situations. Furthermore, the informants would often tell me what a conversation or exchange he or she had just had, was about. But if I was in doubt, I would ask the informant to let me know what the exchange had been about. This however, was only necessary a couple of times. Regarding the more formal interviews carried out, fortunately most informants spoke excellent English. At Ă&#x2DC;restad High School, all participant observations and interviews were carried out in Danish.

102

Socio-cultural and Spatial Perspectives on Life in the Three Work Environments

In this chapter I present my analysis of the empirical investigations carried out in the three case-study buildings described above. There are many different aspects of social everyday life in work environments. These pertain to both sociocultural and specific place-related issues. In order to make this analysis more readily available to architectural practice, it has been divided up into six different analytical perspectives, related to both sociocultural aspects, and the affordances for sociality of specific places and room typologies. This analysis structure allows a focus on the specific design elements and considerations of importance to design practice, by allowing practitioners to pick and choose specific parts of interest at any given time. Based on the observed social interactions in the three investigated buildings (see Figure 16, 17, and 18), six analytical perspectives are presented as a part of this analysis. These are: 1. Visual Transparency and Cross Spatial Interactions, which deals with the effects of visual contact within the buildings. 2. Natural Meeting Points, concerned with the many different types of both designated and naturally developed social spaces that afford meetings and interactions among the users. 3. Interactions within a Specific Group or Area, a theme that looks at the effects of co-location on social interactional activities. 4. Behavior Settings and their Affordances for Sociality, which deals with the effects of culture on social activity within different settings. 5. Habits and Social Use of Space, a theme that is concerned with how habits regarding the use of space affect interaction possibilities within the buildings. 6. Intent vs. Everyday Life, which deals with the intentions of both the client and the architect, and how these affect, or have been affected by the everyday social life of the users.

103

In the analysis, I draw on the theories presented in the first part of this thesis. Gibsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1986) affordance theory, extended to affordances for sociality (Gaver, 1996), in combination with the sociocultural aspect of behavior settings, constitute a combined underlying theoretical basis for this situated analysis of social interactional activities within the three work environments. On the following pages I present a visual overview of the observed social interactional activities in the three investigated buildings (see Figure 32-34).

Work space

Copy/print

Staff room

Work space

Service plaza

Figure 32: Observations of social interactional activities at Tangen Polytechnic.

104

Cafeteria Teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s table

Office kitchen

Work space Table by kitchen Office kitchen Work space

Cafeteria Service desk

Work space Work space

Figure 33: Observations of social interactional activities at Nieuwegein City Hall.

105

Palm tree

Office kitchen Work room

Work room 3

Work room 2

Staircase Teacher’s lounge

Work room 1

Teacher’s table Reception

Figure 34: Observations of social interactional activities at Ørestad High School.

106

Visual Transparency and Cross-spatial Interactions

Since all three investigated buildings are designed to be very open, with visually accessible areas and spaces, the visual transparency and the positive and negative consequences of this is an aspect of everyday social life within these environments mentioned by all informants. Thus, the first part of this analysis deals with the different aspects pertaining to visual contact. In the three investigated buildings, the open design of many of the spaces affords what I have termed cross-spatial interactions. Cross-spatial interactions are interactions that occur between setting-participants placed in different areas of the overall space, and they are made possible by visual contact. Visual Contact and Increased Interactions With direct reference to visual transparency, Informant 3 states that: “The building is visually open, which gives me the opportunity of working in this department and looking through the windows to see if my colleague, whom I want to talk to in the green department, is at work, or at his desk. Then [I] normally walk over, or when we call [each other] then we have visual contact, which is a help. […] [The visual transparency] makes it easier to go over and talk to somebody and actually see that [the person] is there” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

According to this informant, the open plan and its related visual contact “helps you to communicate better with your colleagues, who are more visible and relatively easily accessible”. As a result, “you are able to make social remarks regarding other people, because their workplaces are decorated when somebody has a birthday, or you see cards appear when babies are born […]. You receive more personal information” (Informant 3).

107

At Ørestad High school, a similar pattern was observed for how the open design of the building affords visual contact and increased interactions. Here, Informant 1 notes that: “… these are very open environments where there is a large degree of interaction, and where it is almost impossible not to be in contact with others and exchange experiences about large and small matters. It ranges from how the last period went to how we solve some larger problem” Ørestad, Informant 1

Informant 1 continues and argues that the interaction is: “… facilitated through the building, right? Because you cannot hide, you never get a teacher about whom you can say: ‘Wow!, he has been sitting down there in that work room for twenty years, I had no clue that he was even there, because he always hides down there in the work room and in a class room’ […], you cannot do that here” Ørestad, Informant 1

Being able to see others increases the amount of knowledge the individual person has about his or her co-workers. This relates to Skjaveland & Garling’s (1997) argument, that visual and oral communication allows users to get to know more about each other, and that this is a prerequisite for tolerance and engagement in social activities. The obtained knowledge about co-workers increases the level of interactions between them, as Informant 3 points out: “I think it matters a lot that you see people all the time. It makes you want to just talk to them and make a comment. If you did not see them that often, then you would probably think: ‘Oh, someone is walking by there; I do not know who it is, so I do not know whether to say hello to that person” Ørestad, Informant 3

Along the same line, Informant 7 mentions that “… the glass and the openness makes it possible to see which co-workers are coming in and going out that I might need to get in touch with or say something to” (Ørestad, Informant 7). Furthermore, the open design also affords locating others within the setting. During the investigations at Nieuwegein City Hall, I observed employees getting up from their desks in order to look into other departments, in order to locate others, or see if someone else was at his or her desk. In addition, the employees here have visual contact to and from their desk and the office kitchen. This makes it possible to see if someone is in the kitchen and then go talk to them, but also to get a cup of coffee and still be able to see if someone is trying to locate them at ‘their’ desk or in the department. At one point during the observations, a colleague of the informant I was observing that day looked into ‘his or her’ office while the informant was standing at the coffee machine. The 108

informant called out to the person making a joke about her wanting to know where he or she is at all times. The colleague came over to the office kitchen and they discussed some work-related matters. They walked over to ‘his or her’ office after a few minutes and continued the discussion while looking at the computer screen. However, even though the visual contact of the open space makes it easier to locate, talk to, and get to know co-workers, personal preferences and specific work-related collaborations also affect the frequency of interactions among different employees. When asked if there are co-workers that informant 4 at Nieuwegein City Hall never talks to, the answer was: “Yes, but that is more personal. […] here on this floor it is just a few, but that is more of a personal thing, and of course the ones that work in departments that I do not have any connection to. There are lots of people that I only know from Facebook, not by name, [people I have never] spoken to” Nieuwegein, Informant 4

Learning Afforded by Visual Transparency For the informants at Ørestad High school, the open design also affords learning from co-workers by being able to see how others perform tasks or carry out certain activities: “… the open rooms basically require that we communicate more with each other about what we do […], because you comment on what you see and so on, and you know that others see it too. […] Generally, the building prepares the ground for reflection and mutual exchange of experiences, precisely because it is so open. It becomes clear what works and what does not work” Ørestad, Informant 2

Similarly, Informant 3 notes how he or she is introduced to new ways of doing things by observing co-workers teaching within the setting: “I think it is so cool when you walk around, that you can see your co-workers: ‘Oh, someone is teaching there, what is he or she doing?’ Then you can stand there and watch and think: ‘okay, that is another way, I could also have done it like that’” (Ørestad, Informant 3). See Figure 35. The glazed walls to the few more traditional class rooms are generally viewed very positively by the informants at Ørestad High school. They afford a view into the activities within the space, and thus facilitate learning between the co-workers: “I think it is great that you can look in and see what they are doing: ‘Look, oh, there is someone doing something exciting in there’, or ‘what are they doing in there?’, and then you can go ask them. If everything was closed off, you would not know what went on behind that closed door, right?” Ørestad, Informant 3

109

Figure 35: Visual contact to colleagues’ teaching methods at Ørestad High school.

The Setting as a Social Organism Being able to see others and their activities, as afforded by the open design creating visual contact between spaces at Ørestad High school, not only creates opportunities for learning, but also for feeling a part of a larger social community. Here, Informant 2 argues that: “Theoretically you might assume that [the visual transparency] could be a negative thing, but I think it is positive. […] I like being able to see that the others are doing the same thing that we are. That you are a part of a larger system, the school system” Ørestad, Informant 2

Along the same lines, Informant 2 at Ørestad High school notes that “… it makes you happy to be in this building. Because of the light and because there is space around you, and because you become part of a sort of social organism. That is, you are constantly a part of something bigger, and you are constantly reminded of that because you can see so many people” Ørestad, Informant 2

In line with Skjaveland & Garling’s (1997) concept of interactional space, it could be argued that the visually transparent and centrally located atrium spaces in the three investigated buildings constitute semi-public common areas between 110

classrooms, group areas, meeting rooms, and office spaces respectively. As such, the atrium affords passive contact among users walking to and from the different areas of the building, and thus a range of social activities and a sense of belonging to a common social entity. Visual Contact and the Lack of Privacy The visual transparency that follows the open design, however, is a complex matter and thus, the open design has both positive and negative affordances for the informants working in the three investigated buildings. In an informant interview at the Nieuwegein City Hall, Informant 2 points out one of the contradictions related to working in a visually transparent environment: Informant: “… it is easier to find people, not in the way that you know exactly where they sit, but it is more open. In the old building, everybody had their own office with walls between them, this is more open.” Interviewer: “So being able to see people, is that a good thing?” Informant: “Yes, I think it is a good thing, but the problem is that I don’t want to be a part of it. I want to have an office right outside of it – I don’t want to sit in the middle of it, because I hate it.” Interviewer: “So you want to be able to see people, but not necessarily be seen all the time?” Informant: “Yes, you got it.” Nieuwegein, Informant 2

In addition, the visually transparent meeting rooms pose a problem related to unwanted interactions and lack of privacy in all three buildings. Particularly in Nieuwegein City hall, this is an issue related to both the people within the meeting room as well as the ones seated around it. Here, Informant 3 states, that: “Sometimes [the visual transparency] is too much, because from the place where I work, I’m able to look into a space that is normally used for meetings. Sometimes you get the impression that the people who are in the meeting are looking at what you are doing. The colleague who is placed diagonally across from me, with his back to that room found it quite disturbing for the first few months. He even put up a drawing against the window in order to block part of the view” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

The negative affordances of the glass walls also becomes evident when another informant, who uses a smaller glazed work room in the middle of the office floor, is asked if enough privacy to work can be obtained in that room: “Do you think? You have no privacy because everybody can see you sitting here. I would like to have something like the 111

frosted [effect] on the glass, so you would be visible from one side [only], without losing any daylight, because you are sitting in the middle” Nieuwegein, Informant 4

Figure 36: Meeting room at Nieuwegein City Hall.

While the meeting rooms throughout the open office spaces at Nieuwegein City Hall afford auditory privacy, they do not afford visual privacy due to their placement within the office space, and the constant visual contact afforded by the glass walls (see Figure 36 above). Informant 1 clarifies: “On the 5th and 6th floors they have [meeting] rooms enough for us to sit there, but I don’t like them. The rooms are transparent and you can see everything. That’s why, if I want to have a private conversation, I sit on the chairs by the support desk […], not in the [meeting] room” Nieuwegein, Informant 1

Here, the informant points out that sensitive private conversations are compromised within the transparent room, because “people can see their faces, and I don’t like that” (ibid.). Along the same line, Informant 2 points out that the glass walls present a problem within the space: “Sometimes it’s a problem. I had a big quarrel about half a year ago […] and a lot of emotion was shown, and [people were] crying. Then you don’t need glass walls so everybody can see it” (Nieuwegein, Informant 2). The same informant also points out that having regular status meetings with your superior is difficult within a visually transparent room facing the open office floor: 112

“I don’t think it should be done there. For me it usually ends well, but for other people it’s not always that good, and I don’t think it should be done in rooms with glass walls. […] I think I would prefer another floor and offices that face away from colleagues” Nieuwegein, Informant 2

Even though the meeting rooms, placed in connection to the work rooms at Tangen Polytechnic, afford a less disturbing work environment, there are issues related to the visual transparency of the glass walls here too (see Figure 37) . Some informants here find it uncomfortable and would never engage in any form of private or sensitive interaction within the meeting rooms. Others are mostly concerned with how the students might react to having a difficult meeting or conversation with their teacher in a room with direct visual contact to the busy, open atrium space. Informant 4 points out that: “It doesn’t bother me that much, but when it comes to the students, I always make sure to place them so you can see them” (Tangen, Informant 4). Moreover, the same informant notes that it might also be problematic that students outside the meeting room can see that a faculty member is in a difficult situation. The informant described the following situation: “… We were sitting in the meeting room […] when she got a phone call, and she came in completely in shock […], because her mother had died and she was shaking […]. We were just so busy [with the situation] that we didn’t think about the glass walls and all the students and teachers walking by […]. I would not have found it easy to sit there, if something tragic had happened to me […]. I would probably have preferred […] to get away for a while, if something had made me cry. […] Maybe it’s more out of concern for the students” Tangen, Informant 4

At Nieuwegein City Hall, one meeting room has frosted panels on the glass walls. During my interview with an informant placed on the same floor, I asked about the frosted walls in that particular meeting room. Here, the informant pointed out that this was put up at the request of a council that often used the meeting room in question. The council’s members felt the need for privacy while they were in the space. Informant 1 also points out that the employees had asked for permission to put frosted panels on the walls on an earlier occasion, but that the request was denied by the same council: “… the council said no [to us], but now that the council asks [for it], we have to do it” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). In addition, the informant points out that even though it has been considered necessary to frost the glass walls of this meeting room in order to be afforded the necessary degree of privacy, the employees have not been allowed to erect similar frosted panels on the other meeting rooms within the remaining open office spaces. This request has been denied because management wants to keep the building visually transparent.

113

Figure 37: Meeting room at Tangen Polytechnic.

At Ørestad High school the students generally learn to work within the open and visually transparent building, without being disturbed by others walking by. However, informants generally note that there are both positive and negative sides to the nearly constant visual contact within the building: “… because there’re so few walls, you’re constantly in contact with both students and your co-workers, whether you want it or not. Sometimes you can really get tired of it, because there’s something happening all the time. That’s like… that’s the negative side of it. […] But then it’s also what happened right here within the last half hour, where you saw… where I could talk to [name], who was standing right next to me, and then we just got to evaluate the PE day last Friday. So you get a lot of work-related talk”  Ørestad, Informant 1

114

However, informants at Ørestad High school also note a lack of some more private and enclosed spaces, especially when having conversations with students that: “… just shouldn’t be done out in the open” (Ørestad, Informant 5). Also, the same informant points out that the small designated meeting rooms with their glass walls are not: “… optimal, because you’re still very visible” (ibid.). Informants at Ørestad High school generally find it difficult to find a suitable space, if they know that a meeting with a student will be difficult or unpleasant for the student. Here, the visual transparency of the designated meeting rooms, referred to by the informants as the ‘glass cages’, causes a problematic lack of visual privacy: “… if my student started to cry during the conversation, I would place her on this side of the table, where she would have her back to the people walking by. But I would still have the problem that someone could walk into the room next door. […] If I thought it might be a type of conversation, where my student might get upset over something, I would try to shield her, but it would be difficult, it would be a challenge” Ørestad, Informant 7

Regardless of the issues related to the lack of privacy in the meeting rooms of both Tangen Polytechnic and Ørestad High school, the examples above show that informants at Nieuwegein City Hall are generally more disturbed by the visual transparency compared to informants at the two schools. I would argue that this depends on three things; firstly, it depends on how the open design affords the activities of the informants, secondly, it depends on where these activities take place, and thirdly, it depends on whether the informants view the visual transparency as being purposeful or not. At Tangen Polytechnic, the employees teach most of their classes in traditional, closed classroom spaces, and during breaks, the majority retreat to their work rooms to eat and relax, something I will return to later in this analysis. As a result, employees here are not visually accessible for much of their working day. Being visually accessible, therefore, is not a major issue in this particular building. At Ørestad High school, on the other hand, employees are very visible at almost all times; during their teaching sessions, while eating in the cafeteria, and partly during their work in the work rooms and Teachers’ Lounge, all places that I will discuss later in this analysis. To a large extent, however, the visual transparency here seems purposeful to the informants. This is mainly due to the organizational culture and its related ideas of general openness and accessibility concerning both the physical environment, collaborations among co-workers, and management style. I will return to these issues related to organizational culture later. At Nieuwegein City Hall, however, thoughts reflecting the open and accessible environment are not directly detectable within the organizational culture. Here, the informants are constantly visibly accessible, without feeling that the visual transparency of the workspace is a necessary part of carrying out their everyday activities within the setting. 115

As I have mentioned earlier, a good fit between organizational culture and physical environment is vital for employee well-being and for a positive social climate, which is important for the occurrence of collaborations and other social interactional activities. In all three buildings, however, issues related to the visual transparency of the glass walls of the meeting rooms are generally viewed as being problematic in relation to not being afforded enough visual privacy to engage in personal or sensitive meetings and interactions. In addition, at Ørestad High school specifically, the lack of a space that affords communication about sensitive or private matters related to students is viewed as being a problematic issue by most informants. The lack of a teacher’s room in this building is also an issue that I will return to later in this analysis. Locating Others Locating others is generally not problematic at Tangen Polytechnic, where the employees are allocated to specific work rooms and have their teaching schedules available on the intranet. At Nieuwegein City Hall, however, informants apply different strategies to locate co-workers they need or want to interact with. In the formal interview with Informant 2, the informant states that when locating someone specific: “I [usually] ask Marie, she knows everything” (Nieuwegein, Informant 2). As such, the informant depends on a co-worker in order to locate others within the building. Informant 3, on the other hand, points out that it is difficult to identify the specific whereabouts of co-workers, even though they have noted the area they are sitting in for the day in the computer system: “… when I look into the computer system I can find the colleague I am looking for, but then when I get to the floor, it is a question of where on the floor I can find the colleague, because it is not clear which part is A, B or C, not to me” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

Apart from not being able to locate specific areas within parts of the building, informants at Nieuwegein City Hall also experience difficulties locating co-workers due to the flex-desk system. As Informant 1 points out, finding others that you want to interact with in person would be greatly facilitated by having fixed desks within the large office spaces: “I do not like the flex-working system, it is not the building, it is not my work, but I cannot find my colleagues. This costs a lot of time – you saw me this morning. […] It is good when you have a room, and you sit there and everybody knows that you sit there. The only thing we have is email and you can respond to it, but sometimes it is better to go to the colleague and speak [in person]” Nieuwegein, Informant 1

116

Generally, the informants at Nieuwegein prefer to speak to others in person. Sometimes this results in employees getting up from their desk, walking around a certain department for a while, asking a couple of co-workers if they know the location of the person in question, and then sometimes giving up on finding the person only to return to the desk they are using that day to send an email instead. At Ørestad High school, the open design affords ease of locating others within the different areas of the building. Locating others in order to be able to discuss things face-to-face is considered important among the informants here: “I know we’re supposed to write to each other and all that, and that’s nice, but there’s such a big difference in looking at each other and talking to each other, and also, it’s a lot faster than sitting there writing to each other” (Ørestad, Informant 2). Here, therefore, the open design and the fact that people generally use the same rooms and areas, as I will return to later, affords face-to-face interactions. However, in relation to the students, the visual transparency in the open atrium space at Ørestad High school occasionally worries Informant 4, who mentions that: “… it is so easy to see that you are alone, if you are standing alone up there […] it is ok, most people find others, it just takes a little longer for some” (Ørestad, Informant 4). In addition, Informant 2 notes that: “There are probably some types of student who think that is a bad thing – to always be exposed, to be a part of something bigger, and never being able to just be oneself” (Ørestad, Informant 2). See Figure 38.

Figure 38: At Ørestad High school the visual transparency makes it easy to see when someone is alone.

117

Natural Meeting Points

The three investigated buildings afford a wide range of natural, informal meeting points, including atria, staircases, work rooms, copy and print rooms or areas, as well as cafeterias and office kitchens. These different rooms and areas constitute different behavior settings (Barker, 1968), presenting the users with diverse situations (Suchman, 1987), and thus affording varying types of social interactions. In this section, I will present the observed meeting points within the three case-study buildings and describe what the situations within them afford the informants in terms of social activities. Generally, the three buildings are all viewed as visually open settings that afford contact between the users. Informants at Tangen Polytechnic point out that the open design within many spaces in the building, affords easier contact between employees, as well as between teachers and students. Informant 3 argues that: “… the way people are able to get in contact with each other in this building is amazing. You see students from different classes interact, and teachers from different classes interact. You don’t see that when you just work in separated departments here and there. People interact with each other in a completely different and much more interesting way now” Tangen, Informant 3

Informant 1 states that: “It’s very easy to get in contact with colleagues when they’re walking around” (Tangen, Informant 1), and along the same lines, Informant 3 talks about feeling personally closer to the co-workers in the building: “I think it’s easier, the threshold for meeting each other in this building is much lower than it was in the [former] buildings” (Tangen, Informant 3). During the observations at Nieuwegein City Hall, an informant informs me that there are more interactions in this building, compared to the one they were in before, because, he states, you get to meet many more people than you did before, so you know more people by name and face. Previously, there were 118

so many people the informant had never seen before. Another informant at Nieuwegein points towards some co-workers outside the small office we are in and states that those co-workers are “…working in the text department. Usually you would never talk to those people – they would be in their own office, but now we small-talk about football and things like that” (Nieuwegein, Informant 2). Informant 4 at Ørestad High school, however, argues that meetings within the building are afforded by the way users are able to move around within the setting, rather than by the open design: “I think it has more to do with the way you move around in the building, not so much the visual, but the fact that you walk up and down the staircase for example, and meet each other all the time. I think you have a lot of meetings in a day – that is, where you just meet and start talking to each other” Ørestad, Informant 4

Thus, it is not only the open design of the space at Ørestad High school that affords meetings among the users. The central location of the open atrium space with its connecting staircase, affords co-located movements by most the users throughout the day, and thus many chance meetings and opportunities for interaction. Informant 4 also points out that: “… you meet each other in more places here, I think […] and that makes it easier to exchange ideas, or make a quick appointment.” However, the informant adds that these quick meetings and interactions might not result in “… deep collaboration” and that these kinds of collaborations have “…more to do with the teachers’ attitudes and willingness to be open and share their ideas and materials and all that, right? And there’s a big willingness to do that here” (Ørestad, Informant 4). The Open Atrium Space The open spaces surrounding each atrium in the three case-study buildings are spaces that afford several types of interactions. As a central, connecting point within each building, the open atrium space, as I will show in much more detail in the later analysis of the staircase and its surroundings at Ørestad High school, affords a range of different social interactions. These include meetings, waiting for others to form groups and dyads, cross-spatial interactions to and from the staircase and the surrounding spaces, etc. As such, the atrium with its connecting staircase and visually transparent surrounding areas is a constellation of objects present in the same setting. These, taken together, afford something in their totality that is different than the individual objects or architectural elements and the people using them would afford individually (Costall & Richards, 2013). Thus, it is the constellation of several different objects and people within a setting that affords the wide range of social interaction possibilities. As I will show later, the open atrium space also affords different interaction possibilities for different user groups, and thus, various cultures emerge within this one setting, in the form of different social realms for students and employees at the two investigated school buildings. 119

Figure 39: The atrium space at Tangen Polytechnic provides a common area for different user groups.

At Tangen Polytechnic, the atrium serves as both a connection point and a place to carry out a range of practical and social activities. Several informants describe using the open atrium space to talk to students, either at the copying machine, or on their way through the space. Regarding the use of the common areas surrounding the atrium, Informant 4 uses these for: “Copying, use of the light table, talking to students, walking back and forth from the rest rooms…” (Tangen, Informant 4). The open atrium space, and the placement of certain amenities within it, thus affords interaction between different types of users, by providing a common area for both user groups (see Figure 39). As I will show later regarding the use of the staircase within the open and visually transparent atrium space at Ørestad High school the atrium and its surrounding railings are also used as a vantage point with a social view at Tangen Polytechnic. During the observations in the building, spontaneous outbursts of clapping and whistling would erupt among the students standing around the open atrium on all floors. Whenever someone walked up or down the staircase, the students would clap their hands, scream out and whistle. Some of the students on the staircase would try to get off it as quickly as possible, while others put on a little show for the crowd, bowing, etc. This collective action erupted twice during an hour. The first time, teachers would rush out, asking each other if there was a fight or a performance going on. The teachers placed in the same workroom as the informant I was observing that day, informed me that this was the first time they had witnessed this kind of activity among the students. At Nieuwegein City Hall, the atrium use is much more restricted than in the other two investigated buildings. The staircase within the atrium here only runs up to the fourth floor of the six stories high building. The top two floors run 120

Figure 40: The ‘Palm Tree’ area at Nieuwegein City Hall provides a functional common meeting space which also affords meetings with people from the outside.

all the way out to the atrium space, with no open, usable areas around the space to meet and interact in. Furthermore, due to two suicide attempts by a citizen of the town a couple of days prior to my arrival in the building, the third floor is now the last floor that is accessible to the public. This shows the importance of the particular in understanding activities within a given setting (see Suchman, 1987). The third floor houses the council meeting hall, the mayor’s offices, the support desk, and one of the building’s office areas. In the space surrounding the open atrium on this floor, there are two different areas, both furnished with groups of softer furniture. One area also has regular tables and chairs. The area to the left of the 3rd floor office space is referred to by the employees as being under the palm trees, due to the many large, green plants placed in this area (see Figure 40). The other furnished area is placed next to the support desk. This is a smaller area consistent mostly of soft chairs with high backs placed towards one another, with a low table in between. The busy open space is used by many of the informants, placed in the 3rd floor office space, when they need privacy or want to engage in informal interactions. Informant 1 mentions, that: “All the people walk out to the support desk and sit there” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1), and that: “If I want to have a private conversation, I sit in the chairs by the support desk” (ibid.), rather than in the meeting rooms within the office space. The busy nature of the open space here affords privacy, because individual conversations cannot be overheard. At Nieuwegein City Hall the open atrium space also affords convenient meeting points between participants from within and outside the building. Outsiders are not wanted within the closed office floors, and thus the atrium space 121

and the seating arrangements placed here offer a space for small, informal and semi-formal meetings with people not working within the city hall. In addition, informants point out that they also use these areas for informal meetings and private conversations with co-workers. The Different Staircases In this section, I present the observations and informants’ views on the different staircases within the three investigated buildings. Here, the focus is on reasons for choosing to use either the open, central staircase or one of the closed staircases within each building. In the later analysis of the central staircase as a specific architectural element, I will present findings related to social activity patterns on the central staircase at Ørestad High school. As I will return to in detail later, architects often view the staircase as being of great importance to the occurrence of and opportunities for social interactions within the built environment. In this analysis, however, I present the point of view of the employees. Related to the central staircase at Ørestad High school, Informant 2 notes that: “I can see why they [the students] like to hang out there; you’re seen and you can see others, and seeing and being seen is part of their identity process. For them, it’s great that you can stand here and see everything: what they did at the party last Friday, and then being able to point out who did what with whom or: ’have you seen that guy, he behaved like a moron, right?’ They understand themselves better by mirroring themselves in all these people doing different things” Ørestad, Informant 2

For the employees at Ørestad High school, though, the staircase within the open atrium space affords chance meetings, but is still not considered an ideal or effective place to meet. While informants do stop to talk to co-workers they happen to run in to either on, or surrounding, the central staircase, the space does not afford prolonged interactions, because: “… people are always on their way somewhere, when you catch them in areas like that […]. So, you almost stand there grabbing on to each other, just to be able to hang on a little longer. But then at some point someone must let go, because you must do something, right? So, in that sense, the way people behave on the staircase is a product of them not having a common room, I think. Otherwise you would just say hi and move on” Ørestad, Informant 2

122

I will return to the lack of a staff room at Ørestad High school later in this analysis. Informant 3 points out that these types of chance meetings can happen anywhere, and that due to the large amount of traffic on the central staircase, this place is not always the most convenient place to stop and talk: “… maybe not when there’s a lot of students on it. It’s more like a place where you meet when fewer students are walking up and down, because otherwise it’s easy to feel like you’re in the way, right? But in the middle of a period two teachers can meet, and none of you have class, then you can easily stand on the staircase and talk, but I can stand anywhere to talk” Ørestad, Informant 3

At Tangen, however, very few informants ever meet and stop to talk on the staircase: “No, never, never. Funny you should ask. No, never. […] I never use the staircases to talk to anyone, or to stop, no. Just for transport” (Tangen, Informant 4) . Some informants at Tangen specifically choose other staircases, because they feel too exposed on the central staircase within the open atrium space: “You have an audience, who watches you walk there and that… No, I think it’s weird” (Tangen, Informant 2). The informants mentioning feeling too exposed are younger, female teachers. This example from the interviews and observations show how the content of the social interaction shapes the activities in the space. In this case, the boys attending construction courses at Tangen Polytechnic attend class in a department placed right next to the open atrium space on all floors, taking up the entire far left side of the building. During recess, these boys generally stand by the atrium railing, overlooking the open atrium space and the central staircase within it (see Figure 41). As a result, the younger, female teachers feel uncomfortable and exposed when using the staircase, and therefore often choose other routes through the building. At Nieuwegein City Hall, very few employees use the central staircase at all. The ones that do are generally placed in the 3rd floor office space and use the staircase when walking one floor up or down to the 4th floor cafeteria. The lack of use of the central staircase has a quite simple explanation, being that the staircase only runs from the ground floor to the 4th floor, as mentioned earlier. Thus, the large office spaces on the 5th and 6th floors are not accessible via the central staircase. In addition, the office floors on all levels are very large, which means that many employees are placed far from the central staircase, and instead use one of the closed staircases placed within the open office spaces. These closed staircase spaces also house the office restrooms. Designing the staircase to only extend as far as the 4th floor was due to the upper office floors being closed to the public. Some informants at Nieuwegein mention meeting co-workers in the closed staircases and stopping briefly to talk. These meetings, however, are connected to space-related issues of the narrow space, where users must be careful “not to block the staircase in one direction or the other” (Nieuwegein, Informant 3). Instead, informants “would walk to a floor or intermittent level” (ibid.). In addition, the conversations or interactions on the staircases are very brief. 123

Figure 41: Students overlooking the staircase at Tangen Polytechnic sometimes create an uncomfortable situation for younger, female teachers using the staircase.

Here, Informant 4 mentions that he or she engages in small talk “occasionally […], making a joke or something like that, but normally we just do our thing; I go to the toilet, or walk upstairs, or downstairs and that’s all” (Nieuwegein, Informant 4). Informant 3, on the other hand, occasionally talks briefly to co-workers in the closed staircase space: “Sometimes it is social talk, but most of the time it’s work related. The conversations normally don’t last beyond two minutes. Most of the time it’s: ‘Have you done this?’, or ‘where can I find you later?’. It’s never going to be large scale discussions” (Nieuwegein, Informant 3). However, at Ørestad High school, an informant also mentions that once you meet someone on the staircase, it is difficult not to talk if you are walking in the same direction: “It has something to do with the fact that it’s too weird to walk three steps in front of someone without talking to the person. You must have some sort of relief from a potentially awkward situation and then walk up the stairs together. But, of course it’s also nice to talk now that we’re here” Ørestad, Informant 7

Thus, the staircase is a behavior setting (Barker, 1968), where participants are expected to walk together if they meet each other in any of the buildings’ circulation spaces. Walking separately is considered awkward and out of the norm if two or more participants are going in the same direction.

124

Shortest and Less Time-consuming Route Informants at all three buildings note that they generally take the shortest and most convenient route through the buildings. This activity pattern is also evident in the observations made in the different settings. Here, the informants usually have particular patterns for getting to specific places within the building. At Tangen, Informant 4 notes: “… if I’m going to the 6th floor, to the administration, then I often take [the central staircase] up. I don’t know why, but it might be because it goes like this and then like that, and then I end up where I’m going. […] If I’m going up here […] then I get away from… and then I have to walk a half circle before I get here […]. I think it’s beautiful to walk up the staircase, and you get some exercise, but it has something to do with where you end up. If my work room was on that side, then I would probably use it […]. It works really well, when I’m going up to the administration, because then I end up on the right side, so that’s when I walk that way” Tangen, Informant 4

At Tangen Polytechnic, the central staircase is designed as a combination between regular steps and a ramp, also referred to as ‘the Stramps’ by the informants. This means that the steps are designed very low and deep, making them intentionally time-consuming to walk in, in order to slow the students down and give them time and opportunities to interact with each other on their way up or down the Stramps (see Figure 42).

Figure 42: ‘The Stramps’ at Tangen Polytechnical. © Adam Mørk & 3XN.

125

Informant 6 notes that the students often stand around and on the stairs talking to, or looking at each other, and that these stramps do indeed work in order to slow the students down, making movements within the atrium calmer. Talking to informants and reading the architects’ statements makes it evident that this combination between stairs and ramps are designed only with the students in mind. Employees are never mentioned in the architects’ remarks or descriptions of these so-called Stramps. For the employees, therefore, the design makes the central staircase too time-consuming to use on a regular basis: “… it takes too long, and it’s an unnatural way to walk, I would say […]. I save time by using the closed staircases” (Tangen, Informant 1), and: “…they’re a bit clumsy, the central ones. They’re too low in relation to how high they are” (Tangen, Informant 5). Informant 2 notes that: “I mostly use the orange [closed] staircase, and then the other [yellow closed] one […], because those two are faster” (Tangen, Informant 2). Thus, the central staircase at Tangen Polytechnic is only used by employees if they either have a lot of time, or if the specific flight of stairs takes them directly to the room or area they need to reach: “If I have time, then I use the ones in the middle” (Tangen, Informant 6), and: “It depends on what I have to do, and how much time I have. If I don’t have time, I use these [closed] ones. If I’m going to some rooms across there, then I use the one going across [the atrium] there. It depends, but if I’m going directly somewhere, then I use the [closed] ones” Tangen, Informant 5

Informants at Ørestad High school also describe how they have specific routes in order to get to a place as quickly and conveniently as possible. Here, Informant 3 describes the reasons for using the closed staircase at certain times: “…it’s closer by. Otherwise I have to walk all the way up through the cafeteria and that’s a huge detour. Also, if I’m over in that corner down there and I just have to get down to the administration, then I also walk down the staircase over there. So, it depends on where I am in the building, and where it makes the most sense to walk up and down” Ørestad, Informant 3

Informant 6 notes that “I always try to find the shortest way […], so I can get down there faster” (Ørestad, Informant 6), and Informant 1 points out that: “I often use the closed stairs, the ones in the shafts, in the four corners. I almost always use them as a shortcut. But if I walk up from [the cafeteria] then I use the central staircase, of course. But if I’m walking up from the administration, then I take the stair tower over in… what is that… the north-western corner, and if I’m going up to some of the middle areas, then I use the one in the south-western corner” Ørestad, Informant 1

126

Avoiding Congestion and Interactions with Students The busy nature of the central staircase at Ørestad High school makes it difficult for informants to use it during peak times, due to the large numbers of students walking up and down. During the observation, Informant 6 points out that the central staircase was meant to be a place where people would stop and talk, or hang out. This, the informant notes, is not the case, because it is simply too busy to afford those kinds of activities. Instead, the staircase has become a means for transportation only. However, transportation mostly relates to the students who have no other way of moving around in the building. Rather than using the central staircase, the employees at Ørestad often use the closed stairs placed in the building corners: “I use the closed staircase over there in the corner […] if [I’m] just going up or down and it’s extremely packed, if it’s a time when it’s extremely packed on the [central] staircase” (Ørestad, Informant 4). Other routes through the building are sometimes chosen specifically in order to avoid interactions with the many students on the central staircase. Here, Informant 2 explains the reasons for not using the central staircase during peak hours: “I don’t always feel like dealing with a lot of students […]. If I’m just going from a to b, then I don’t always feel like walking out onto that [staircase] and saying hello to 20 people […]. Then I just use the closed stairs, just like most of the other members of faculty” Ørestad, Informant 2

Along the same lines, Informant 5 notes that: “Sometimes I have to get from one place to another […]. Then I use the closed stairs, both to avoid the congestion, but also perhaps to get a break from the students…” (Ørestad, Informant 5). However, the informant also mentions that: “Occasionally, you think it’s nice to be a bit social on the central staircase, but it has to be when it’s not too busy” (ibid.). Using the central staircase when it is not filled with students is something that several informants mention that they enjoy: “During classes, I often take the central staircase down to get a cup of coffee”, Informant 7 mentions and explains that: “I think it’s both the variation and then also because it’s a nicer place to walk. The closed staircases are these dark and scary places, and the ones out there are nice. It also has something to do with the transparency; when you walk down the [central] staircase you see who’s having a class where, and: ‘oh, there’s 3.k, I have to get a hold of them later to give them a message’” Ørestad, Informant 7

Informant 2 mentions that “Sometimes, when I’m going home, I like to take the big staircase down, because then you see that now the building is almost empty, and I like that, because it’s very nice to look at” (Ørestad, Informant 2).

127

Figure 43: Work room at Tangen Polytechnic overlooking the cafeteria area below.

Work Rooms At Tangen Polytechnic, the co-location of employees within the same professional fields in the different work rooms affords spontaneous meetings between them throughout their working day. The fact that the work rooms are closed off from the common areas in the open atrium space means that they afford the necessary privacy related to conversations concerning student issues, as well as other privacy-dependent conversations and departmental meetings (see Figure 43 and 44). When asked whether it feels natural to share personal matters with co-workers within the work room, Informant 5 answers: “Yes, it does. We talk about our vacations and kids, and so on” (Tangen, Informant 5). The open layout of the work rooms, however, also affords some unwanted interactions for some of the informants, depending on how they are placed within the space: “I could really use some walls […]. It’s very open and I have to say hi and hello to every person that walks in here” (Tangen, Informant 1). Some of these involuntary interactions are not only related to the layout and design of the space, but also to the culture among the users within it:

128

Figure 44: Work room at Tangen Polytechnic without designated meeting room.

“… last year we had one daughter in Australia and the other in the Caribbean doing different things, and there’s a twelve-hour time difference, so if I wanted to communicate with them I had to do it on Facebook. So, when I was on a break I would go on to see if one of them was online so we could chat for a bit. And that’s when I got irritated when co-workers would walk by and say: ‘Oh, it’s not only the students that are on Facebook’. Then I thought: ‘You really shouldn’t comment on what your co-workers are doing when you walk by. That’s not [conducive to] privacy, I’m on my break” Tangen, Informant 4

As shown above, the work rooms become behavior settings with their own sets of appropriate behavior related to greeting each other as someone walks into the room. Although this might be the appropriate behavior in this setting, it is nonetheless a disturbing aspect of working within the space. The section above also shows how frustrations arise when participants of the behavior setting, disregard appropriate behavior related to the privacy of the other participants. At Tangen Polytechnic, most informants engage in most their daily interactions with co-workers in their work-room. This is also the case at Ørestad High school, although it is less pronounced here. When informant 6 at Ørestad is asked where in the building he or she usually runs into people and talks, the answer is: “Mostly in the work room, I would say. Almost only there” (Ørestad, Informant 6). Most the informants, however, note that they use the work room during breaks, which 129

also includes the lunch break. The lunch breaks in the work rooms, however, are not necessarily social in character, because the informants generally eat in front of their computers while working. In addition, the work rooms afford meetings within the same small group of co-workers, and thus minimize the opportunities for interactions between co-workers from different departments during lunch: “… In Teacher 2, it’s almost always the same people, but we often sit and work on little things. We sit and work; it’s not always social” (Ørestad, Informant 6). I will return to the issues related to interaction within the same group, space, or department later in this analysis. Despite often working in front of the computer during lunch, informants at Ørestad High school also use the work room for interactions with their co-workers. Here, the closed nature of the space affords interactions about more sensitive, student-related matters (see Figure 45). Informant 7 notes that: “I often seek out the work rooms, which are enclosed spaces that might be a bit atypical compared to how everything else is very open here. […] It’s nice to walk in and shield yourself from the noise, but it’s also about being in a place where you can talk about the students, for example. You can’t… We often share experiences about a class, or there are issues with this student or something like that, and we can’t do that out in the open, where they can hear it, or their friends can hear it” Ørestad, Informant 7

Figure 45: Teacher room 1 at Ørestad High school.

130

Copy/Print Unlike at Ørestad High school, where printers are placed within the work rooms and thus are used within these enclosed spaces by teachers only, at Tangen Polytechnic the printers and copying machines are placed in the open atrium space on each floor. Employees generally use the one on the same floor as their work room, but can print or copy at any machine. Many of the informants here mention the placement of the copying machines as something that affords contact and interactions between their co-workers: “… I often meet colleagues and students while I’m making copies. Then I stand there and talk […], and that’s really nice” (Tangen, Informant 1). Another informant mentions that the placement affords meetings with co-workers and states that: “It becomes sort of a break, a small social break” (Tangen, Informant 3). This view is also found with Informant 4, who points out that: “… it used to be the women by the water station, now it’s by the copying machine, because this is where we meet. You get here, and there might be four students and teachers, and then you wait and talk, so yes, it becomes a meeting place” Tangen, Informant 4

Coffee Machines and Office Kitchens On each of the three open office floors at Nieuwegein City hall, several office kitchens with coffee machines and other amenities are placed within the space. The office kitchens are generally placed between two departments, and thus afford a meeting point used by employees from both departments. In addition to general use of the kitchens and coffee machines, the kitchens afford many informal interactions, usually among co-workers from within a specific department: “We tell jokes and ask each other small questions. […] Most of them you know, because you see them on a daily basis. Mostly it’s the same people who get their coffee here, just like I do” (Nieuwegein, Informant 4). The kitchen spaces afford a lot of informal interactions in front of the coffee machine (see Figure 46 below). Due to the busy nature and small size of the area in front of the machines, the space affords many chance meetings among the co-workers throughout the day. However, the kitchen areas are also used for more planned interactions, such as celebrating birthdays and eating cake while standing around the kitchen counter, or for having short meetings. Next to most of the office kitchens is a large table, separating the kitchen area from the wardrobe and personal lockers (See Figure 47). While the informal meetings within the overall kitchen space generally are not planned, but occur spontaneously when co-workers happen to meet each other at the coffee machine, as mentioned above, these chance meetings often move from the rather busy area right in front of the coffee machine to the table next to the kitchen. This table affords a place to sit down and engage in prolonged interactions. Informant 2 notes that after meeting co-workers at the coffee machine, they: “sometimes sit down by the table”, where they “drink some tea […], have a break

131

Figure 46: Meeting others in front of the coffee machine at Nieuwegein City Hall.

and gossip” (Nieuwegein, Informant 2). In addition, these tables are generally used a lot for socializing during breaks, as well as in the morning, when employees arrive at the office (see Figure 48). The tables and their placement in direct sightline to the elevators and staircases leading to and from the office floor, afford meetings throughout the day, as employees come and go and thus pass by the table. Furthermore, the space is also used for more formal meetings, if other areas are unavailable. Informant 3 describes that: “There are moments when we sit down in the morning, and there are moments when we want to discuss something and none of the other conference rooms are available, then we sit there” (Nieuwegein, Informant 3). These meetings occasionally involve employees from departments on either side of the office kitchen: During the observations in the building, I notice two employees having a meeting by the table in the office kitchen. The meeting lasts for ten minutes, after which the two employees walk back to their respective departments on opposite sides of the kitchen. As such, the kitchen space and the table in it afford a common, neutral meeting point where employees working in the different surrounding departments can conveniently meet. The placement of the coffee machine at Ørestad affords no social interactions among the different groups of employees. For reasons unbeknownst to the informants, the coffee machine here is placed within the quiet concentration work room, Teacher Room 1. Informant 5 notes that: “…it’s not really ideal that the quiet room also houses people’s lockers, the coffee machines and the sink. […] I really don’t know why that’s the case” (Ørestad, Informant 5). Thus, the quiet room affords neither consistent concentration for the people working there, nor interaction for the employees walking in and out of the room to get their coffee. 132

Figure 47: Gathering in office kitchen at Nieuwegein City Hall.

Figure 48: Talking to co-workers around table in office kitchen at Nieuwegein City Hall.

Meeting Rooms and Beyond Each work room at Tangen Polytechnic, with one exception, has one small and one larger meeting room attached, separating the work room from the open atrium space. The meeting rooms have glass walls towards both the atrium and the work room (see Figure 37 on p. 124). These meeting rooms afford several different types of actions and interactions. On the one hand, the meeting rooms afford more formal meetings and interactions: This is where informants have status meetings with students, and when ideas for specific projects and collaborations arise in other areas of the building, this is where interactions related to these collaborations move to, when they are being formalized: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The staff room is a form of a common 133

meeting place […] where we can speak more informally about ideas, and then you can move to a more formal meeting room if the ideas progress” (Tangen, Informant 3). However, the meeting rooms also afford conversations and conducting private phone calls without disturbing co-workers in the work room: “… if the phone rings, we walk in here, instead of sitting out there”, Informant 1 notes. In one of the work rooms, however, this is impossible due to the lack of a meeting room. Informant 3, who is placed in this work room, points out that it would have been easier to work in the room if there had been a meeting room. The informant also notes that: “It’s been suggested that we don’t have meetings in here, but they happen anyway, because this is where we meet and talk, so in a way it has to be like that. […] There’s a table there [in the middle] where we can meet, but that means that when we have spontaneous meetings, it disturbs everybody else. […] We try [not to use it], but it doesn’t work. Every day someone uses it. Several times a day” Tangen, Informant 3

At Ørestad High school, the entire building appears to be used for both formal and informal meetings. Despite some of the informants noting that the enclosed workrooms afford interactions related to sensitive student matters, and private conversations generally being afforded in work rooms and the teacher’s lounge, many also point out that they use the open areas around the building for private or sensitive meetings. In this respect, Informant 1 notes that: “… then you can just lower your voice. That is, if we’re having meetings about students and there are things that are private information [you can] just lower your voice and make sure that no one can hear you” Ørestad, Informant 1

The same informant also notes, that: “It’s rare that we need so much privacy that we can’t meet” (ibid.). Informant 4 points out that the open group spaces are often used for talks with the students: “You pull them aside, for example there’s often an open group space that isn’t being used, right next to where you are, and then you just walk over there” (Ørestad, informant 4). The informant has: “… never heard [students] complain about it”, because “… you just talk quietly […] and then it is a bit of the norm, because when there’re so many things going on out in the open, what happens there isn’t so interesting” (ibid.). Just like we saw it earlier at Nieuwegein City Hall, informants at Ørestad High school also feel like they are afforded conversational privacy out in the busy, open, and transparent spaces. Thus, when it comes to talking informally with co-workers at Ørestad High school, several informants mention that they feel they can do that anywhere in the building: “I just talked to someone by the cafeteria. We talked, and then we walked up the stairs and kept talking” (Ørestad, Informant 6). Informant 7 points out that he or she can speak privately with co-workers in:

134

“… all places, really. That is, it can happen in the work rooms, or down in front of the administration by the table there, or while we’re moving through the building. Well, I probably wouldn’t choose to be very private if I were standing inside a classroom and had a feeling that my students could hear everything I said, but if I’m moving through the building then it’s different for me. I think it has something to do with the acoustics in the [open] group spaces that lower the sound a bit. It gives me a sense of my conversations being private when I walk through them” Ørestad, Informant 7

Along the same lines, Informant 4 at Ørestad views the atrium railing as a good place to have a private conversation, because the area is so busy: “The railing is actually an okay idea, because you just stand there and talk. It’ sort of like no one really notices you out there, or listens to what you’re talking about, because there’s nothing striking about standing out there to talk” (Ørestad, Informant 4). I will return briefly to how these open, busy areas afford conversation privacy later in this analysis. Others, however, find it hard to locate a space that affords smaller, more sensitive meetings: “The problem here is that it’s hard to find a place where you can be yourself, or where you can be two or three people […]. So of course, there’re certain things you have to write to each other about, or that you call each other about” Ørestad, Informant 2

Cafeterias and Lounges At Nieuwegein City Hall, most informants eat at their desk, in front of the computer. This is also the case at Tangen Polytechnic and partly at Ørestad High school, as mentioned earlier. Habits in relation to the use, or rather the lack of use, of the cafeteria at Nieuwegein and the staff room at Tangen will be described later in this analysis. In the section below, the focus is placed on the affordances for sociality (Gaver, 1996) offered by the cafeteria and lounges, mainly at Tangen and Ørestad. Some employees at Tangen Polytechnic have gotten used to sitting in the cafeteria during lunch, after the teachers were initially encouraged to do so before the school had a staff room: “I usually sit in the cafeteria with all the students when I eat lunch. We have a staff room, but I never use it. I don’t really know why, but if I’m having coffee with a colleague or lunch, then I sit down in the cafeteria with the students and the rest of my class” Tangen, Informant 1

135

Figure 49: Teacher’s table in a corner of the cafeteria at Tangen Polytechnic.

For other employees, the cafeteria plays an important role as a meeting point between the different teachers working in the clean zones in the school educational kitchens and the so-called dirty zones in the rest of the building. During my observations, an informant mentioned that the round table in the cafeteria, reserved for the restaurant and nourishment teachers, is a great meeting point, because the teachers teaching theory classes and the ones teaching practical classes in the kitchens can meet here without changing their clothes. This enables them to socialize and have planning meetings throughout the day (see Figure 49). While some employees at Ørestad High school chose to eat in the work rooms, others meet for lunch at a table reserved for the teachers in the school cafeteria (See Figure 50). The table is one long unit, with room for between 30-40 teachers at one time. Many of the informants enjoy eating here, because “it is great that we can just stand here and talk about all kinds of informal and sometimes work-related things. […] I usually walk down there, because [I] like to talk a bit and have a nice time with the others” (Ørestad, Informant 3). The informants at Ørestad High school note that the long table affords interactions with a wide variety of co-workers, because informants just stand or sit wherever there happens to be room and thus “just end up wherever, and then you talk to the people there” (Ørestad, Informant 3), and that: “you just sit down where you can find a spot, and therefore you always end up together with different people” (Ørestad, informant 4).

136

Figure 50: Teacher’s table outside reception area at Ørestad High school.

Informants also note that the teacher’s table is a good place to meet co-workers that they normally do not run into, because they use different rooms and areas within the building, and that even though not all the teachers come here for lunch, it is still “a wide section […], so you get to see each other a bit more” (Ørestad, informant 5). Some employees, however, chose to eat lunch in the work rooms. This then affects the opportunities for interaction among co-workers from the different departments: “… some people usually eat in the work rooms, so then you don’t see them for lunch” (Ørestad, Informant 4). Besides the work rooms and the teacher’s table in the cafeteria, the employees at Ørestad High school have another space available for them to use. This is called the Teacher’s Lounge. This space is a semi-closed space reserved for teachers. The space is furnished with work tables, as well as with soft, low chairs (see Figure 51). Many informants at Ørestad High school note that they use the lounge for tasks that require less concentration, as well as for interactions with co-workers. Regarding the lounge, Informant 4 mentions that: “If I know I have to be efficient, for example, then I shouldn’t sit in there in the lounge, where I normally sit, because it’s really nice and you end up talking to each other. That’s one of the things that’s [also] a big plus; that you have the social aspect, and that you can get inspiration and help” Ørestad, informant 4

137

Figure 51: The Teacher’s Lounge at Ørestad High school.

Informant 5 notes that the Teacher’s Lounge affords both private and work-related interactions: “It’s collegial […]. It’s work-related, but there’re also some fun stories […]. It’s a good mixture, a bit more recreational...” (Ørestad, informant 5). The Teacher’s Lounge also houses different smaller social events among the employees, as well as staff parties, where the lounge and the open area outside it are combined in order to accommodate all the attending employees. As I will return to later, however, the lounge is generally used by the same groups of teachers on a regular basis. Use of the space is greatly dependent on the subjects the employees teach, as well as on the location of the work room the individual teacher is assigned to or uses on a daily basis. According to Baron (2007), this would mean that the employees using the lounge interact a lot with the group of co-workers also present in the lounge, and therefore less with groups of co-workers using other spaces within the setting. At Ørestad High school, however, informants tend to use several different spaces within the setting, thus engaging with co-workers from many different groups. As I have shown in this section, the many different spaces within the three buildings make up a series of behavior settings that afford different forms of actions and interactions to the participants. However, the available spaces are not always used by all employees and thus participants of the different settings do not always interact with participants from other settings. As I will show in the next section, this is more pronounced in certain situations and settings within the investigated buildings.

138

Interactions within Specific Group and Area

The most conspicuous aspect of this theme is that interactions among many of the informants tend to aggregate around their own desk or work room, rather than at designated or even informally developed social areas around the building. Thus, interactions are often local and consequently occur with the co-workers placed in the same location (see Figure 52). This is especially pronounced at Nieuwegein City Hall, where informants interact locally with co-workers placed in the same immediate area as themselves, or in the local departmental office kitchen.

Figure 52: Local interactions around work desks within specific department at Nieuwegein City Hall.

139

At Tangen Polytechnic, interactions are often situated in the informants’ work rooms, due to circumstances and habits that will be described later in this analysis. Regarding Ørestad High school, the informants here are the ones that use the largest number of different places for social interactions with co-workers. However, even in this building, and the socially oriented organizational culture within it, informants also tend to form habits of space use and thus to interact with the other people also using the same spaces. I will return to the issues of organizational culture, and habits and space use later. In the sections below, I will focus on how co-location among employees afford social interactions, but also on how the social groups formed by co-location affect the interaction levels among different groups of employees. Co-location At Tangen Polytechnic, there are two levels of co-location that affect interaction. Employees here used to be placed in different buildings scattered around the city of Kristiansand. At Tangen, all the different departments are now gathered in one location. This makes it easier for some of the employees to approach co-workers, who used to be placed in other locations. Here, the co-location at building level clearly affords easier interaction among co-workers from different departments: “… here we have much more contact with the other departments. One can meet a construction teacher during the break and then say; we should do this and that. Earlier, you would have to get in a car and drive, pick up a phone, or write an email to that person. So, we have gotten a much bigger contact surface between all the departments” Tangen, Informant 4

Informant 3 also notes that “… it seems more like a joint college of teachers here than it was at the other [locations], where we were more divided into departments, because we were placed in physically different locations” (Tangen, Informant 3). At the same time, at the joint location at Tangen Polytechnic, informants generally interact locally within specific areas. The co-location in a work room with others from the same department means that the informants mainly interact with co-workers placed in the same work room as themselves. These are by far the most commonly occurring interactions among the informants. At Tangen Polytechnic, therefore, when interviewed about who they interact with most throughout the working day, informants generally indicated that the people they know best, and therefore engage in most interactions with, are the co-workers that are placed in the same work room as themselves:

140

“I mostly [speak] with the people in here, but that is because, well, we meet the others in the hallways, but I wouldn’t go over there to say hello, so I mostly meet the people who are here […] it’s about social knowledge. That is, I know some people very well here, but the rest are more like… I hardly know their names […]. We haven’t had any social interaction together. […] The ones I know the best are sitting in my immediate vicinity. But I really wouldn’t mind talking to the others also” Tangen, Informant 1

When asked who Informant 5 feels the most connected to within the work place, the informant answers: “…that would be the people I spend the most time with and those are the ones that I’m placed with” (Tangen, Informant 5). Kraut et al. (2002) argue that co-workers are more likely to interact if they are placed in close proximity to one another. They point out that interaction decreases with distance, especially if co-workers are placed on different levels. It could be argued that this might be due to a decrease in knowledge about other areas because these are not a part of a specific employee’s so-called sphere of operation (Kabo et al., 2015). According to Kabo et al. (ibid.), the areas that the individual employees use within the building should overlap in order to afford meetings and social interactions. It is, of course, a given that if people never use the same spaces or areas, there is no possibility for them to meet. However, what Kabo et al. (ibid.) argue, is that this overlap in space-use is much more important than distance measures. At Nieuwegein City Hall, informants consider it easier to perform their tasks if they are placed within the same area as their immediate co-workers: “… there are moments when I ask my colleagues, ‘how do I do this and how do I do that’ in order to stay within the main line, that means I would not like to do it in [another] space on this floor. Most preferably among my colleagues, because then I can ask quick questions” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

Being placed in the same location makes it easier to interact with co-workers (Kabo et al., 2015). In effect, this means that employees placed away from the main group in a certain department experience a sense of being outside the general social community within the department: “… if you are sitting over there, you are more in the open office space – you are more part of the group and as such you will be spoken to. Me, sitting here, I’m a bit removed, people come to me with real , not daily jokes or anything like that, or just talk. They come to me when they really have something to discuss, or a question they are working on and need somebody to reflect on that” Nieuwegein, Informant 4

141

This makes the informant in question feel less like a part of the social community within the department. This example shows the difficulties in defining placement related to either co-location or distance. The informant mentioned above is placed in the same department and in close proximity to his co-workers. However, because the informant is placed in a small office within the open office space, informal interactions are less convenient to engage in because the informant and his or her co-workers would have to get up and walk over to each other, rather than just talking to each other at their co-located desks. In this sense, the lack of visual contact between the informant and the co-workers creates a different situation (Suchman, 1987) than the one between the co-workers, who have visual contact to each other. Thus, even though the informant and the co-workers have many sphere overlaps (Kabo et al., 2015) using the same open areas, office kitchen, and printer room, the different situations that develop related to the visual contact of immediately co-located others versus being placed in a separate space within the setting, appear to matter regardless of this space being only a few feet away. At Ørestad High school, Informant 4 mentions that he or she usually sits in the Teacher’s Lounge to work, and that: “… logically, I also speak a lot with the other people who use the lounge” (Ørestad, Informant 4). According to the informant, it is generally the same group of employees who use the lounge. This pattern is also evident with Informant 6, who points out that the co-workers placed in the same work room are the ones he or she interacts with most: “… when I’m not teaching, I mostly talk to the ones in Teacher 2 [work room], but that’s because those are the ones that are there” (Ørestad, Informant 6). As Baron (2007) points out, this affords less interaction with other groups within the setting. Thus, strong tie groups are less desirable than week tie groups due to the lower number of interactions between all the employees in settings with many strong tie groups interacting amongst themselves. Informant 5, however, mentions that co-location is also a positive aspect of the work environment: “… knowledge sharing is often something that happens somewhat randomly, as a result of talking […] across the table, or eating together. Then you just start talking about something, and that’s when I have often noticed that ‘oh, so and so does this or that, that sounds interesting’” Ørestad, Informant 5

Difficulties with New Co-locations At Ørestad High school, management deliberately place teachers in changing groups within shifting work rooms related to the classes the teachers have during the year. Being placed as a group in specific work rooms affords the necessary interactions among teachers teaching the same topics or classes, because the co-location affords work-related interactions among the employees. Informants at Ørestad High school are generally very aware of this, and agree with the idea that the teachers are moved around between work rooms in order to be placed with co-workers with whom they need to collaborate. However, in practice, the informants find it difficult to effectuate the actual move once they have found a place they feel comfortable in: 142

Informant 7: “I mostly sit in teacher 2 on the 2nd floor. That’s where I was placed when I started working here, […] so of course being there has affected the relations I have to the teachers that are also placed in there. I think that this year I have actually been formally placed in another room on the 3rd floor, where I haven’t been yet, because I feel so comfortable here on the 2nd floor. […] I have a lot of science classes this year, so I’m really placed on the 3rd floor where all the chemistry, math, and physics teachers sit, and if I sat there it would probably enhance the communication between us, right?” Interviewer: “So, is it a form of physical collaboration tool that you get moved around?” Informant 7: “Yes, so that we can have those little talks that you need to have, and that you don’t have the energy to book a meeting room for, or that you just don’t have if you don’t happen to see each other” Interviewer: “So, is it because you have developed social or personal relations to the people in Teacher 2 that you stay there?” Informant 7: “Yes, it is” Interviewer: “Because it’s nicer?” Informant 7: “It’s nicer, and more convenient. But the ambition or the intention to place me with the people I work with now is good, I think. Well, in principle, right? Because, of course it would also develop if I sat up there. But still, I feel so comfortable in Teacher 2 that I haven’t been able to move yet.” Ørestad, Informant 7

Here it becomes clear that the informant knows that co-location with co-workers affords more of the necessary informal meetings and communication within the group, but that it is difficult to move from a location, where the informant feels like a part of a comfortable social community and to start afresh building new social relations in another location. It could be argued that employees not moving to new work rooms would in fact increase the amount of interactions within the overall setting, as employees would then have contact with a wider range of different groups or people. Instead, however, employees just stay within their original groups and spaces, and thus interact with the same co-workers, rather than the ones they need to interact with for specific work related tasks. This, of course, makes carrying out tasks more difficult than if the specific employees where placed in the same location. The question is, however, if the situation in the different work rooms would actually afford the necessary interactions, if employees felt forced to work in a specific room. Interactions within Departments As shown above, informants tend to interact with co-workers placed in the same room, area, or department as themselves. The most common answers among the informants regarding who they eat lunch with, or spend the most time with, 143

include: “… usually the people from my own department” (Tangen, Informant 4), and “… the people I’m placed with [in the workroom]” (Tangen, Informant 5). Reasons for this include statements such as: “… because we teach the same type of classes” (Tangen, Informant 4), and “because we’re seated together” (Tangen, Informant 5). Spending the most time with co-workers in the same work room also results in these co-workers developing a greater sense of social community with each other, compared to co-workers placed in other rooms. When asked if working closely with some co-workers also meant that these were the ones the informants felt a more pronounced social community with, the informants confirm. Reasons for this include the co-location, ease of meeting each other, and the time spent in the same place. In terms of organization, Tangen Polytechnic seems to be struggling somewhat with the fact that the location involved bringing together several different study areas and departments that used to be dispersed throughout the city of Kristiansand. Some informants here still remain quite focused on the co-workers they know from their former locations, as Informant 6 points out: “… we were at [former location] for seven or eight years. […] and the people that worked there – it was like they felt like their own group was enough, not everybody liked to say hello to others. I really like getting to know others, […] but not everybody feels that way. Most people just want to be around the people they know the best. They do not understand why they have to get to know other people” Tangen, Informant 6

Regardless of the informant labeling him or herself as outgoing and interested in getting to know other co-workers, the same informant also states that the people he or she socializes the most with are the co-workers from his or her own department, because “… those are the people that I have the most to do with” and that, regarding co-workers from other departments, their interaction is dependent on “… whether we have been in some groups together, such as pedagogy, if we have gone to school together or been in a club with them, because then the social community is totally different” (Tangen, Informant 6). The informant also points out that the employees working in his or her department have more people to talk to and interact with in the staff room, because the cleaners, who also uses the room, used to work at the same location as the informant’s department prior to the collective move to the current building. As a result, they know them better than the others do, and thus state that they feel more inclined to interact with them. Being a Guest on Other Floors At one point during an interview at Nieuwegein City Hall, Informant 1 talks about having to go to another floor to speak to some co-workers there about a specific issue: “… they work on the 5th floor, and I’m a guest when I walk through there”. I ask if the informant thinks the employees interact more with co-workers placed 144

on the same floor as themselves, rather than with co-workers placed on other floors, and whether he or she always chooses to sit on the same floor, even though the flex desk system gives her the opportunity to sit on any of the office floors. Informant 1 points out that: “This is our floor, so yes; I think so […]. If I went upstairs to the 5th floor to sit tomorrow, everybody would ask me what I was doing there. […] It isn’t normal for me to sit there” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). Kabo et al. (2015) argue that persons have more or less established spheres of operation within a setting. Users, thus, often have the same movement patterns within a space and use the same areas and amenities continuously. During the observations in the three case-study buildings, this pattern of use becomes quite clear. Informants generally point out that they always use the same rooms and areas within the buildings. As I will show below, this also pertains to using the same desk every day, regardless of an organizational culture pertaining to flex desking. A Place of My Own During my investigations and informant observations at the Nieuwegein City Hall, all informants referred to the desk or smaller office they used as their own desk or office, despite the flex-desk system within the organization. Thus, in addition to staying on the same floor, all informants at Nieuwegein also mention that they sit at the same desk or in the same 2-person concentration room every day. One informant notes that he or she likes the flex-desk system, but that you can now draw a map of where everybody sits, because people are creatures of habit and always choose to sit at the same desk. As mentioned above, regardless of the flex-desk system, this desk or small concentration room is always referred to as their own among the informants: Informant 1: “… everybody sits in their own chair” Interviewer: “So people usually pick the same spot every day?” Informant 1: “Yes, everybody” Nieuwegein, Informant 1

Informant 4 notes, along the same lines, that: “This is originally a concentration place, so that means that people want to separate themselves from the rest to work in a concentrated manner. For me, that is the case every day, so most of the time this is my fixed place, where I sit” Nieuwegein, Informant 4

During the observations, it becomes clear that this occasionally also pertains to meeting rooms: On the way to the same informant’s office, he or she points out a small meeting room and tells me that he or she and the two closest colleagues always have their meetings there and that they have made this room ‘their’ meeting room, so that others know not to use it. Despite going against the flex-desk system that supposedly affords 145

more interactions among different people within the office spaces at Nieuwegein City Hall, the naturally occurring fixed seat habits does make it easier for the co-workers to locate one another. In fact, some even mention how the flex-desk system makes it difficult to locate co-workers that are so new to the setting that they have not yet picked ‘their own’ desk, where others can be more certain of finding them. Not adhering to the flex-desk system shows one aspect of how users change the setting they are in, in order to change what it affords them (Gibson, 1986). In doing so, the users also create new canonical affordances of the setting by changing the culture and the activities considered appropriate within it (Costall & Richards, 2013). However, as I will show below, the many employees using the office spaces at Nieuwegein City Hall on a less regular basis, have not become part of, or possibly even noticed, the changed culture within the setting. This generally causes frustration among the employees working here on a daily basis. My Seat is Taken While waiting to meet up with an informant in the office one morning, I had placed myself with a direct view to the office and desk the informant had told me that he or she always uses. At 08:20, however, another employee arrives and takes the desk in question. The informant shows up ten minutes later and lets me know that someone has taken ‘his’ or ‘her’ office and that he or she now has to find another place to sit for the day. Being unable to sit at the preferred desk is associated with a lot of frustration among the informants: “99 out of 100 times I’m in there. In fact, it feels annoying when somebody else is in there because they know I always use it” (Nieuwegein, Informant 2). Informant 1 also notes that: “… we normally use the same office, but now there’s a lady sitting there, because I was late this morning, and she sat down on my chair” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). Many of the informants at Nieuwegein City Hall try to get to work early in the morning, in order to get their preferred seat. Informant 1 points out that he or she used to get to work later, but that these arrival times have changed: “half past eight, half past seven, and now at 7am, because then I can sit there. […] if I come in 15 minutes later then the room is taken and I will have to sit [somewhere else] all day, and I don’t like that” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). Informant 4 also notes, that when he or she gets to the office “at 7am in the morning, then I can choose where I sit, because there is nobody there” (Nieuwegein, Informant 4). Informant 2, however, does not want to take part in what is referred to as ‘the race’, but getting the preferred seat is still a concern. When asked if he or she tries to get to the office early in order to get the preferred seat, the informant points out that: “No, the other people do that. I know that when we moved into this building, the people who tended to start at 8 in the morning were here at 7am. They still are, and they sit at their own desks, and that’s not so bad. I’m not going to make a race out of it, but when I’m in the car I realize that I should not be too late, because then I won’t get the seat I want” Nieuwegein, Informant 2

146

These examples show how the organizational culture at Nieuwegein City Hall does not fit the flex-desk system and, as a result, employees occasionally feel like they are being removed from their surrounding social community and preferred co-workers by having to sit in another area. As I will show below, however, the lack of a fixed, personal seat does not pose a problem for the informants at Ørestad High school. Fixed Seats are a Thing of the Past Contrary to the patterns observed at Tangen Polytechnic and Nieuwegein City Hall, informants at Ørestad High school are not interested in having a fixed place to sit: “I don’t think I would like it. Because then, if you had a fixed seat, you would be kind of tied to it and then you would have to stay there. No, I think it’s nice to move to another place every once in a while, because then you get to sit together with some other people, and that’s the whole point” Ørestad, Informant 1

Informants here point out that: “I have never heard anyone say: ‘that’s my seat’” (Ørestad, Informant 2), in fact, it is pointed out that there are no fixed seats and that “I think people would start laughing, if someone said: ‘that’s my seat’. I think they would die laughing or something like that. That is a phenomenon of high schools of the past, no one would even dream about that here” (Ørestad, Informant 1). Even though informants at Ørestad would never consider a certain seat their own, they do point out that everybody ends up spending much of their time in the places they find the most comfortable, and thus, that they talk more to the co-workers placed in the same spaces: “… I talk a lot to the people that also hang out in the lounge, logically enough. […] It’s also a lot of the same people that sit up in Teacher 2 and Teacher 3. It’s like people have found a base, where they think it’s nice to be, and where they get some work done, and where they get some inspiration or something like that” Ørestad, informant 4

What we see here, is that informants can evaluate the purpose of a given setting and determine whether the activities they wish to engage in are sufficiently consonant with the goals of the setting and thus possible to carry out in that place (Scott, 2005). What becomes clear during the investigations at Ørestad is that for the informants here, the places they feel the most comfortable in can be several different places for each informant. As such, they often change behavior settings in order to be afforded something else. That is, they move to a new specific setting in order to be afforded either concentration or interaction depending on their mood or task. 147

Using several places during the workday or week affords meeting many different co-workers, and thus creates the opportunity for many different interactions. According to the previously mentioned ideas on sphere-overlap (Kabo et al., 2015,) using a wider range of spaces within the setting affords more overlap between the employees and thus more possibilities for interaction with co-workers from several different employee groups. Thus, at Ørestad High school, employees are afforded a wider range of interaction possibilities because they use several different rooms and areas on a daily or weekly basis. Furthermore, the increased opportunities for interactions are afforded, while it is still possible for the employees to choose which places they want to use for different tasks and thus feel part of the different preferred social communities within the setting. Within the work rooms, however, it does become a habit for informants at Ørestad High school to sit in the same spot: “I think I do it without thinking about it, but it’s not like I think of it as my seat. […] It depends on when you get there in the morning. You often have the same rhythm […], and then there’s a seat where you normally sit, and then you sit there. But of course, it isn’t always like that” Ørestad, Informant 4

Unlike the informants at Nieuwegein City Hall, however, the informants at Ørestad High school never mention feeling annoyed if their normal seat is taken: “No, I would never, I really wouldn’t” (Ørestad, informant 2). As I have shown in this sub-section, employees at Ørestad High school are less attached to specific seats and places than the employees in the other two buildings. A reason for this could be that unlike Nieuwegein City Hall, for example, the employees at Ørestad spend most of their day teaching in different classrooms, rather than being engaged in concentration work at a specific desk. Spending so much time at a specific desk might indeed create a sense of attachment among the employees at Nieuwegein. Groups and Interaction Always staying within the same room, group, department, area, or floor poses certain challenges to the amount of interactions among the departments, specifically at Tangen Polytechnic and Nieuwegein City Hall. Related to both formal and informal interactions, Informant 3 at Nieuwegein points out that: “Most conversations I have are with people from my own group, then less conversations with others from the department, and only job related conversations with people from other departments” (Nieuwegein, Informant 3). Informant 4 notes that he or she never sits anywhere else in the building, and thus rarely talks to people from other departments: “Not often. I only talk to people I know. If we have to work together on some special case, for instance with the lawyers on the 5th floor, then we have some more contact, but […] most of the time I stay on this floor” (Nieuwegein, Informant 4).

148

Overall, I have shown in this section how informants in two of the buildings, namely Tangen Polytechnic and Nieuwegein City Hall, generally interact with co-workers from their own room, department, or area. This affects the level of social interactions between department members, and thus results in employees from different departments knowing very little about one another. At Nieuwegein City Hall, this even results in so little contact with co-workers from other departments that they feel like a guest on the other floors. This, of course, further reduces the likelihood of cross-departmental social interactions. At Tangen Polytechnic, we see how the former separate locations affect the interactions between departments. This overall lack of interaction between employees from different departments is further manifested by the co-location in work rooms with co-workers from the same department. As a result, there is limited interaction between co-workers from the different departments, and the designated common social spaces are not being used. However, I have also shown how informants at Ă&#x2DC;restad High school use a much wider variety of behavior settings throughout their workday, in order to be afforded the environment they need to concentrate, or to interact with co-workers. Being co-located with several different groups of co-workers affords a larger amount of interaction possibilities in the overall setting.

149

Different Settings and their Affordances for Sociality

As we have seen earlier, Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Toole (2001) argues that the floorplan of a building shows encoded information about the organizational culture of the occupants. I would argue that this disregards the many different local cultures, whose development within a given building is afforded not only by initial intents within the organizational culture, and thus possibly detectable when looking at the floorplan, but also by more locally developed situations. As I will show in the following sections, the overall organizational culture prevalent within a given place is a part of an overall behavior setting that affords different levels of social interactions among the employees. However, so does the much more local cultures that develop within certain areas and spaces in each building. If, in addition to behavior settings, we also look to Suchman (1987), it is argued that our actions in a setting are made up of a series of situations that we walk into and respond to. This view relates itself well to the observed differences between situations in different rooms and areas of the investigated buildings. The behavior setting in each space presents different situations that afford a range of often different types of actions and interactions. As such, every setting and situation is particular. However, management and leadership are also able to create specific, more general behavior settings that restrict or enable the establishment of different social interaction patterns within the organization. At Ă&#x2DC;restad High school, as I will return to later, it becomes clear that being given the opportunity to use the building after the students have left in the afternoon, affords the development of social groups among the co-workers related to different interests, and spanning several different departments. The behavior settings that make up these social groups and clubs, in turn, afford co-workers from different departments the opportunity to get to know one another and, despite differences in professional interests, to find similar interests during their spare time. Findings from the three case-study buildings show that having similar interests affords more interactions among the co-workers, not only during their after-work activities, but also during their working day.

150

Organizational Culture and Social Community Some informants at Tangen Polytechnic mention the lack of a broader sense of social community between the different departments. Informant 1, for example, points out that: “I think we get along really well here in the work room, but it kind of stops there […], there aren’t a lot of social activities. […] I would have liked that. […] But the work environment is really good. I usually go home at around 3pm, and then I go home to my family and friends […]. But it would have been nice to know some of the people that aren’t placed in here” Tangen, Informant 1

However, the opposite tendency is also mentioned among the informants: “I belong to [specific group of teachers], so I mostly meet people from that group, like when we have meetings and such. The social community is probably bigger if you look overall, but at the same time, you can definitely experience opposition against other departments” Tangen, Informant 2

Informants at Nieuwegein generally lack a sense of social community within the organization: “I think [social community] is something attached to the organization, the social level is not as evident here as sometimes might be required. [Parties or social gatherings are] not for everyone in the building, that is something which is done for groups on the floor, it is not even happening for the whole floor. It has happened once, when they opened the building […], but that is about it” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

This situation is quite different at Ørestad High school, where the organizational culture clearly encourages, and in some respects expects, a high level of interaction between the employees: Informant 1 mentions that: “There is a very informal tone here. No one has [their own] areas – I might be one of the few, who are notorious for having some areas, because I keep order among the computers and in the areas where I spend the most time. But as such, we do not have areas, where you might say that ‘this is my area, this is the one I use and only I can be in here’. There are no fixed seats, so we constantly exchange places relative to each other, and because of that we are also very dependent on each other” Ørestad, Informant 1

151

When asked whether the visual contact between co-workers affects their degree of collaboration within the building, Informant 3 answers: “Yes, I think so […], no one really hides around here, but of course it’s a declared policy that we share knowledge. It’s not just on the physical level that we have transparency, there’s also transparency in our [teaching] material” Ørestad, informant 3

Informant 7 also believes that the visual contact within the building affects the level of collaboration between the employees, but that there are “other things that affect our degree of collaboration more, such as statements from the management about what they expect us to do together and plan together” (Ørestad, Informant 7). Local Cultures in Different Spaces At Ørestad High school, the teachers share three work rooms, located on the first, second and third floors. These have developed into quite different behavior settings internally and thus afford different types of actions and interactions for the informants: “Well, in teacher room 1 you have to be quiet. That is what the people who use that room want. If you sit there it is generally quiet, no one talks to each other – you either whisper or leave the room. In teacher room 2 you can talk to each other […], so in that sense […] if you feel like talking that day [you sit there]” Ørestad, Informant 2

Another informant also points out that teacher room 1 is a quiet concentration room, whereas it is acceptable to talk in the other two work rooms. The informant notes that being able to talk in teacher room 2 “… creates a different kind of social interaction” and that working in a concentrated manner in teacher room 1 has its advantages in terms of concentration, but that it “… does not give the same sense of unity, that I thought was present in teacher room 2” (Ørestad, Informant 3). Informant 7 also points out the differences between the work rooms, and how he or she uses more than one work room, because they afford different types of actions and interactions: “We have a work room that has quiet room status, where you can go to sit and work more concentrated. And then there’s Teacher 2, which is more of a place where you can check in and out of the conversations or sit and work, and I think that’s nice. […] If I have to correct a lot of papers, I use Teacher 1. But if I have […] some small tasks that don’t require a lot of concentration, then I would rather sit in a place like Teacher 2, where I can hear… that is, there’s a lot of knowledge sharing in being here, to hear 152

someone talk about what happened at the staff meeting last Monday that I didn’t attend…” Ørestad, informant 7

As I have shown above, different cultures develop locally within specific rooms and areas, depending on their use. These varying cultures create quite different situations that afford different actions and interactions, even in rooms and areas with almost identical layout. However, the different cultures or behavior settings that have developed in the three work rooms at Ørestad High school occasionally cause problems for the employees. One informant mentions being moved from her designated work room on the second floor to the third floor, and notes that: “… I just had some bad impressions from the start, where I thought there was a bit of culture-confusion when you come from outside [the workroom]. Now the rules are completely different and sort of unspoken” Ørestad, Informant 5

Not understanding the culture and its rules within a given space means that the room or area in question becomes illegible to other users. Suchman (1987) argues that in order for people to become part of a specific situated practice, they need to be able to read the situation within the setting. This reading is occasionally made difficult in the different local work-room cultures at Ørestad High school. As I will show below, however, users are quite able to read the situation of other spaces and thus to discern what the space affords them in terms of social interactions with different user groups. Teachers and Students: Different Behavior Settings The railing surrounding and overlooking the atrium space with its central staircase is generally considered a specific social realm for the students at both Tangen Polytechnic and Ørestad High school (see Figure 53 and 54). Only two informants at Tangen mention standing by the railing, either to look around the building, or to talk to the students: “Sure, when I’m talking to some [students], but it’s not really… I stand there and wait for class to commence, because then I can call the students in, and I can talk to some of them while waiting” (Tangen, Informant 6). The other informants at Tangen never use that area. At Ørestad High school, there is a clear tendency for students to walk out to the atrium railing as soon as they leave their class rooms. Here, the students stand looking around the atrium space and down to the ground floor cafeteria area, while socializing with other students. Most informants at Ørestad view that space around the atrium railing as somehow reserved for the students. That is, as its own behavior setting: “If I ever stand out there? No, that’s the students’ area” (Ørestad, Informant 1). Informants 5 and 7 never stand by the atrium railing because “I don’t have anything to do with anyone out there, or how should I put it, I don’t have 153

Figure 53: Students standing around atrium railing at Tangen Polytechnic.

Figure 54: Students standing by the atrium railing at Ă&#x2DC;restad High school. Here, they also use the space to display messages to each other, such as saying happy birthday to class mates as the signs put up below the railing read.

154

anything to do there. I have no social relations out there […]. I think the students use it as a place to meet” (Ørestad, Informant 5), and “I never stand out by the railing to chat […], because I have other nooks and crannies to do that in, and I regard it kind of as the students’ domain, a place where they can stand and goof around” (Ørestad, Informant 7). Others use it occasionally: “Mostly to talk to students during recess […], but usually just when you walk over and tell [the students] that the break is over” (Ørestad, Informant 2). One informant at Ørestad High school, however, uses this space actively in their interaction with the students, and when asked why he or she walks out there during breaks, the informant answers: “… it is often to talk to my students. […] it is a very good place to have an informal chat, because when we talk inside the class room, it is much more teacher-like, more official things we have to talk about […], but when you get out there, then you can talk about anything. It is kind of a way to get to know them a little, beyond the more academic aspects, and you can stand there and kid around and make bad jokes. […] In here, there is no room for that, as soon as you do that you overstep a boundary, and they would think: ‘uh, that is inappropriate’, but if you do it out there, then it is okay” Ørestad, Informant 3

Thus, this teacher knows how to become a part of the students’ behavior setting at the atrium railing, by being sensitive to the appropriate behavior in this setting, as well as being aware of how this differs from the classroom setting. As such, the area is understood as being reserved for students, but it is also a place that teachers can enter in order to have an informal conversation with them. Organizational Culture and Collaboration Organizational culture related to planned collaborations varies a lot between Tangen Polytechnic and Ørestad High school. When informants at Tangen are asked about the amount of collaborations and interdisciplinary projects between the different departments, and whether these types of projects are encouraged by the management, the answers range from: “… no, not actively. Really, I would have to answer no to that” (Tangen, Informant 1), to: “… they point out that we should work more interdisciplinary, so students will notice it […], but I am probably not the one who does the most to work interdisciplinary, I do it if I have to” (Tangen, Informant 2). The culture related to collaboration is quite different at Ørestad High school, where the sharing of material is an incorporated part of the organizational culture and the everyday life of the employees. During the informant observations here, an informant points out that they always upload their presentations into the school computer system, so people do not spend time on the same presentations for every class. The informant tells me, that he or she did not used to share presentations before coming to work at this school, but because of the visual contact here and the fact that he or she can see all the co-workers, it now feels 155

natural to share presentations as well. Therefore, the informant points out, there is much more collaboration among the employees here and the visual contact makes it feel natural to share and collaborate, rather than to hide your own things from your co-workers. The open design of the building, in combination with the organizational culture, thus, affords collaboration among the employees. Similar Background, Interests and Personal Preferences During the investigations in the three case-study buildings, it became clear that besides interacting with co-located others, having similar interests and backgrounds also affords increased amounts of social interactions among co-workers. Employees with similar professional backgrounds are already placed together in the different work rooms at Tangen Polytechnic. However, another group of employees with similar backgrounds tends to meet regardless of being placed in different work rooms. This is a group of young, relatively newly employed teachers at the school: “We usually meet on Tuesdays […], where we have a little more time. Then we meet [in the cafeteria] where we sit down to talk and eat” (Tangen, Informant 1). Having similar backgrounds also affords understanding and interaction between different co-workers at Ørestad High school. As Informant 3 puts it: “I don’t think [the science teachers], at least on the third floor, interact a lot with us down here, physically. Personally, I talk to everybody. But I think that might be because I used to study science myself, so I do not feel so estranged from science. Many [teachers] from the humanities do, at least a lot of the ones teaching Danish and French. If you start to talk about science, they become completely blank, they have no idea what you are talking about, but I can just join the conversation, because I used to study it once. I think it has a lot to do with their professional backgrounds. They do not understand each other’s worlds” Ørestad, Informant 3

This understanding, however, is not necessarily just connected to having studied the same field or subjects, but also relates to a more general background similarity for some employees. Thus, Informant 5 notes a general understanding and sense of belonging among other high school, or upper secondary school, teachers: “I’m not very social […]. But the good thing about the social aspect here is that, well, I like that in some ways we all know a lot of the same things, but also a lot that is completely different […]. It is very equal somehow, but still diverse at the same time, and I really like that. In that sense, I have always felt at home among high school teachers and that is pleasant” Ørestad, Informant 5

156

Having similar backgrounds also play a role in relation to the newer teachers, who have not yet completed their professional postgraduate teacher training: “The [training] is tough, but on the other hand, you suddenly figure out what everything is all about. I think I have moved from the periphery to now being closer to the middle of the social community between the colleagues. […] I no longer feel like the one who had no clue about what it was all about. Now I know, and I have tried it all.” Ørestad, Informant 3

According to this informant, being a part of the social community makes it a lot more fun to come to work every day: “I really think it does. But it is related to the social and the professional at the same time. It is connected. If you don’t feel completely in on the professional part, then you end up feeling a bit isolated in some ways” (Ørestad, Informant 3). Socializing after Work At the Nieuwegein City Hall none of the informants socialize with co-workers after work. Informants here mention that very little is done, on a management level, to arrange staff-parties or any other forms of social gatherings. In addition, none of the informants here mention feeling like they are a part of a behavior setting where the organizational culture affords meeting co-workers and using the building after working hours. In contrast, socializing after work is made difficult at Tangen Polytechnic, due to differences in culture between groups of employees. On the one hand, these differences are related to the departments and their prior locations separated from each other, and on the other hand they are related to religious differences. Certain departments have developed a culture of occasionally going out for a beer after work, whereas employees from other departments are very religious, and thus do not want to be around alcohol at all: “We do have some parties and such […] like at Christmas […], but if you are very religious and do not drink beer, then you never participate in them” (Tangen, Informant 6). Informant 2 states that: “There is less [social community] now […] it is not so easy to sit down on the first floor and have a glass of wine in your spare time and to meet like that. […] I think [management] is against it. It is related to purchase, right? That you cannot bring a bottle of wine with you, and enjoy it here. […] It has to be the school that buys it and pays for it, so it becomes a bit more formally run […], more controlled by rules, and then it becomes less spontaneous” Tangen, Informant 2

157

In the overall behavior setting of Tangen Polytechnic, alcohol consumption is not considered completely appropriate, and thus management attempt to restrict or limit it in different ways. For some reason, however, the range of after work activities among the employees here still seems to be limited to alcohol-related events, which then cause controversies within the setting. In contrast, at Ørestad High school, apart from the beer-tasting club, other employee activities include band rehearsals and a soccer club, and there is therefore a much wider range of possible activities to join after work. Naturally, this might be explained by the differences in available facilities in the two settings. However, one might argue, that a range of different social activities among employees would be possible at Tangen Polytechnic, if organizational culture here encouraged it. At Ørestad High school, the employees are allowed to use the building after the school day is over. The building is never rented out before 5:30 in the afternoon, which affords using the premises for a variety of different employee activities, such as a soccer club, a beer-tasting club etc. “… you sign up for any of these activities […], so you sign up for the social community […], and that’s a social community that’s not directly related to work, but then again, it is” (Ørestad, Informant 2). Socializing after work, however, is also dependent on having similar interests. Informants feel more connected to the co-workers with whom they share personal interests, such as: “…the ones I play music with. There are just some people you click with, or where you feel that ‘Hey, here is someone that I can talk to about something’, especially something that is not work related. Suddenly, you notice that you have a common interest in music for example, and then you can really talk about that” Ørestad, Informant 3

However, there are some teachers who do not feel like they are a part of the social community, because they do not share the same interests as their co-workers. When asked about the existence of a social community at Ørestad High school, Informant 6 points out that there is one, but that: “[I am] not as much part of it as I would like. […] It does not have anything to do with the building. It is either something about me […]. I don’t play soccer, for example, that might have helped” (Ørestad, Informant 6). In addition, Informant 2 notes that: “Here you have to be more active in joining the social community, compared to where I used to work, because there you had a staff room where you couldn’t avoid [interacting]” (Ørestad, Informant 2). However, the informant also points out that at Ørestad, the overall behavior setting, consisting of the building as well as the organizational culture, affords social interactions among the employees, because: “… here, on the other hand, you have the opportunity of joining the social community […], because the school is a setting that makes you want to stay here afterwards, and because [management] doesn’t rent out the gym as soon as the students aren’t using it” Ørestad, Informant 2

158

Peponis et al. (2007) argue that designated social areas encourage frequent, unplanned meetings and interactions among users of a given setting. However, I believe this disregards the affordances for sociality related to the organizational culture of the overall behavior setting, as well as the ways in which the users themselves view the affordances for sociality related to the different places, or settings, within a given building. One example, as shown above, is how employees at Ă&#x2DC;restad High school use the school gym as an informal, social meeting place. This specific place was not planned or designed as a designated social area for employees. However, the organizational culture inherent in Ă&#x2DC;restad High school as a behavior setting, affords the social use of the gym in the afternoons, both by allowing access and by not renting the space out until early evening. On the contrary, at Tangen Polytechnic, the organizational culture and various internal cultural differences among the employees are obstacles to the use of the cafeteria as a designated social meeting area. Differences in alcohol-related culture between employees, as well as between certain groups of employees on the one hand and the management on the other, makes socializing in the cafeteria after work difficult.

159

Habits and Social Use of Space

Tangen Polytechnic was initially planned and designed without a staff room. This part of the design was defined in the brief, and was thus an intent on the part of the client, not the architect. Informant 2 points out that the employees ended up requesting that the building be provided with a staff room, and in an interview with the principal of the school it is mentioned that: “… when it was being built, I went to the city planning committee because I felt it was a big minus to build this fantastic school without allowing the staff […] to have at least a modest staff room. But I was told that that didn’t fit the concept and would not be considered” Tangen, Principal

After about two years in the building, however, one of the work rooms was retrofitted as a staff room. At the time of these investigations, the staff room had been in use for about a year (see Figure 55). During the first two years in the building, employees were encouraged to sit together with the students in the cafeteria for lunch and breaks. This proved difficult for some, however, due to noise and lack of privacy to discuss student-related matters. The principal at Tangen Polytechnic mentions this as one of the reasons why very few employees use the staff room now, and points out that most teachers spend their lunch break eating at their desks in the work rooms, because they have gotten used to sitting there in order to get a break from all the students. This habit is now difficult to change. Informant 1 confirms this by pointing out that: “I almost never use the staff room, but that’s because our principal encouraged us to sit with the students. […] I think that’s why so many people sit in [the work room] during lunch, because they are used to either sitting here, or together with the students, and then they prefer some peace and quiet” Tangen, Informant 1

160

Figure 55: The staff room at Tangen Polytechnic.

According to the principal, however, this pattern started as soon as they moved into Tangen. The building was not yet completed, and thus a lot of construction workers were still on site: “That’s when they started to sit in the work rooms during breaks, to rest and just sit together with a few people. There was so much noise here, it was completely impossible to sit out there. So, that’s when the tendency to sit in the work rooms during lunch started” Tangen, Principal

During the observations at Tangen Polytechnic, this tendency is observed with most informants. Sometimes eating lunch in the work room includes interacting with the co-workers also eating their lunch in the space, but several informants note that they eat while working in front of the computer: “I usually sit [in the work room] […] I’m not very good at using the staff room. Normally I just sit and eat while I work” (Tangen, Informant 2). Through this example, it becomes clear that affordances present themselves through practice-based use of the setting, and it shows how practice shapes not only activities, but also the habits related to these activities. Ingold (2000) argues that our actions are rooted in the surroundings. We inhabit places and objects, and thus, these places and objects evoke their different uses as we engage with them. In addition, our own meaningful recollection is activated when we carry out activities in the setting. The place becomes part of our everyday life and we are a part of the place. The habits we develop are a part of this connection, because they are in fact built up around the ecological context. 161

One could also argue that the canonical affordance (Costall & Richards, of the work rooms has changed. Where the preferred use, on behalf of designers and management, used to be that of concentrated work, the work rooms are now also being used as a lunch and break room. As such, perhaps the space now has two simultaneous canonical affordances. While many of the informants at Tangen Polytechnic point out that they rarely use the staff room, they generally have a positive attitude towards it. When asked if having a staff room has contributed to the amount of social interactions among the employees, Informant 2 answers: “That’s for sure, I think. A staff room has a positive effect. But I must admit that I’m not very good at using it myself” (Tangen, Informant 2). Informant 5, however, is more hesitant: “I think it’s much the same as before, but since I almost never use it, it’s hard for me to say” (Tangen, Informant 5). 2013)

Working to Change the Habit The principal at Tangen Polytechnic notes that: “I really like the staff room, but I wish more people would use it” (Tangen, Principal). Informant 4 points out that the principal is trying to change the habit of employees eating by themselves in the work rooms: “… sometimes [the Principal] says: ‘let’s set up some pastries or lunch, or something’, as a means of getting more people to come to the staff room” (Tangen, Informant 4). Similar attempts to change these habits can be seen among some of the informants as well. Being aware that spending breaks eating and talking in the work room creates a poor and disturbing work environment for everybody else, informant 6 tries to get his closest colleagues to use the staff room instead. During a conversation related to this in the work room, it becomes evident that this behavior pattern is difficult to change. When asked why they do not use the staff room, the group of co-workers in the work room replies: Informant 6: “We use it occasionally, but not…” Colleague A: “I sometimes use it between classes” Informant 6: “But we’re a bit bad at it” Colleague A: “Just admit it, it’s a bit difficult” Colleague B: “Why should I sit down there?” Informant 6: “There are not so many construction teachers down there, 5 or 10 at the most, and then we’re 30 that are mostly up here” Colleague A: “[…] there are different opinions; some think it’s nice with the colleagues up here, why should I interfere with that? Some of us just think that we have different opinions. There is a bit of ambivalence around it” Colleague A: “But it’s nice to have some peace and quiet. When you spend so much time with the students, it’s nice to have some quiet time, and it’s noisier down there than it is here” Interviewer: “Is it noisier in the staff room?”

162

Informant 6: “I don’t think so, but of course we all have different opinions” Interviewer: “But you sometimes use the staff room?” Informant 6: “I sometimes ask colleagues: ‘let’s go down for some coffee’. Then we go down there, because we know that we can talk a bit more there […]. We have tried to talk a bit less here during the breaks, to be a bit calmer. […] But we never know if we can keep to it – I always talk so loud – so no, I try to get more people to come down there with me” Tangen, Informant 6

Once in the staff room, it becomes clear that the informants mostly place themselves with co-workers they already know, and that a pattern of more or less fixed seats have emerged. Informant 4 points out that: “…you usually sit down with someone you know” and that: “That is often with the ones from my own department” (Tangen, Informant 4). Informant 6 states that: “… you’re only human, and yes, especially in the staff room [teachers from] design and crafts are always seated there, and [others] are seated there, so you’re seated in departments down there” Tangen, Informant 6

In relation to whether there are fixed seats, the same informant notes that: “… I’ve never heard anyone mention it, but they do group themselves […]. When [name] and [name] come in, they sit by the kitchen there and the construction teachers are over there. […] And then there’s design and craft […], I rarely sit at that table, because they use the fridge as if it were their own. They always sit [at that table] there” Tangen, Informant 6

Informant 3 stands out in terms of not sitting with his or her own department and notes that: “I go to [the staff room] to meet others”, but the informant also notes that these other people are “… not anybody, but people from another department that I know from before and that I work with sometimes” (Tangen, Informant 3). In other words, informants trying to meet with people from outside their own department when they are in the staff room, generally end up socializing with a specific group of co-workers from another department, seated in the same place in the room. Among the informants that use the staff room, it is perceived as a relaxing space that affords them the needed privacy to be able to interact without being overheard by students: “It’s so much more relaxing, you can let your shoulders down and really take a break”, Informant 4 notes. This informant also uses the space for personal conversations with co-workers and points out that “… it is usually empty during classes, but even if it isn’t empty and someone is sitting out there on that side, and we’re sitting here talking, we would still feel 163

completely private and be able to talk in a very relaxed way” (Tangen, Informant 4). Informant 6 notes, that the staff room affords more sensitive conversations among the teachers: “… it allows us to talk about some of the frustrations related to the job. […] [Earlier] we sometimes talked about the students out there, and then suddenly a student would walk by and we would have to stop. Sometimes we didn’t see them coming” Tangen, Informant 6

In the examples above, it becomes clear that the staff room, seen as a specific behavior setting (Barker, 1968), occasionally affords social interactions among co-workers from different departments. In addition, the employees who use the staff room are afforded conversation privacy and are thus able to interact about sensitive or student-related issues without disturbing co-workers. However, the development of habits from the initial move to and occupancy of the building, have restricted the use of a space that employees themselves deemed a necessary and relevant addition to the setting. People are Creatures of Habit Very few of the informants at Nieuwegein use the cafeteria in the building for lunch. Instead, they buy or bring some food and eat it at their desks while working. When asked where informant 1 chooses to go for lunch, and with whom, the informant answers that he or she always eats alone, even though employees are not allowed to eat at their desks: “I sit at my desk, but the rule is not to eat at your desk” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). Others go for a walk alone and then eat in front of the computer when they get back. Informant 4 mentions, that if he or she is not out for a walk during lunch, then: “Most of the time I go to the [cafeteria] to get something […], and then come back down here” (Nieuwegein, Informant 4). This informant only uses the cafeteria once or twice a month. Other informants mention that it is too expensive or too fattening to eat in the cafeteria every day. Instead, they bring food to eat in the small office kitchens. During the observations at Nieuwegein, it became clear that most employees eat their lunch while working in front of the computer. Naturally, this activity pattern means that the cafeteria cannot afford the amount of social interactions that it might have been able to if more employees used it. The informants that do use the cafeteria point out that: “I normally go by myself. Some of my colleagues go down to the [cafeteria together], but you very quickly have a situation where lunch becomes a semi-formal discussion about work. I would like to disconnect and talk about something completely different. […] I sit by myself, but sometimes there are colleagues from other departments and then we try to discuss something other than work” Nieuwegein, Informant 3

164

Other informants, who occasionally use the cafeteria at Nieuwegein City Hall, mention that they generally place themselves at the same table with people from their own department every time. Thus, when asked if he or she always uses the same table in the cafeteria, Informant 1 answers: “Yes, because my colleagues do”. (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). Informant 1 also points out that employees generally eat with people from their own department at the same table every day: “Yes, I see that [they pick the same table]. They are together all day and then they eat together” (Nieuwegein, Informant 1). As a result, there are very few social interactions in the cafeteria among employees working within different departments in the building.

165

Intent vs. Everyday Life

Form over Function? During the investigations at Tangen Polytechnic, an employee that is not taking part in the informant observations, sits down next to the informant being observed that day and points out that he thinks the social aspects of the building design has received far more attention than the pedagogical aspect. Hence, the person points out, the pedagogical aspect of the building suffers. The person argues that classroom sizes and workshop areas in the arts department have been much less prioritized than the big, open, social common areas of the building, and that this has affected the teaching in a negative manner. Both the informant and the co-worker point out that the bright and open areas are nice, but that it seems ridiculous to have excessive ceiling heights, when there is not enough room on the floor for tables and students. When conducting the interview with the principal at Tangen Polytechnic, it becomes clear that at least part of this problem could be attributed to the increased number of students: “Before the school was built, the way it was described, the goals […], there were 940 students. […]. And then after it was done and we moved over here, it had to accommodate 1,060 students. […] The architect had drawn it so that we would be able to build on top of the mezzanine, so it was already a part of the planning that we would be able to expand a bit” Tangen, Principal

However, it could also be argued, as I will also show in the next section, that employees at Tangen have a very different outlook on teenagers than what is seen at Ørestad High school. Thus, the employees at Tangen seem to believe that it is impossible to teach teenagers in the open common areas of the school. As a result, these are not used, which leaves less than enough space for teaching activities in the remaining rooms and areas. At another point during the investigations at Tangen Polytechnic, a different employee stops me on my way into the building and asks me if she can 166

tell me what she thinks about the way the building was planned and designed. I agree, of course, and the employee continues to inform me that she thinks it is a shame that the municipality, the former principal’s office, and the architects, did not ask the teachers what they needed in the building, but seemed rather more interested in a building that would end up on the front page of the newspapers. She also informs me that she has seven years of university behind her, as well as a lot of teaching experience, and that she believes the teachers would have taken a much more practical approach to designing a building that would actually work for teaching teenagers, instead of a fancy, modern, open building. A Dire Outlook on Teenagers? The building at Tangen Polytechnic seems to have been viewed as problematic in relation to hosting teenagers from the very beginning, as briefly mentioned above. During the observations at Tangen, I end up in a conversation with a group of employees in the staff room. Here, Informant 7 and the other employees gathered around the table, talk about how incredible it is that nobody has been injured in the building. Most of the teachers were initially afraid that the students would joke around or fight, and then fall over the railings surrounding the open atrium or the cafeteria, or that the students would throw things over the railings that would hit others in the head and injure people. However, no such incidents have taken place, they point out. It is interesting to see how teachers at Tangen Polytechnic talk so differently about the possibilities of teaching and housing teenagers in an open building, compared to the teachers at Ørestad High school. Somehow the informants and other employees at Tangen Polytechnic seem to expect the worst in terms of the behavior and abilities of the students. In contrast, none of the informants at Ørestad High school mention any concerns related to issues of this sort. Instead, they point out that first year students are somewhat noisier and a bit more sensitive within the open spaces, but that they adjust to the space, and learn how to use it for the things they want to achieve within that first year. That students might learn to focus on the positive and useful affordances of the open building, rather than the negative ones, is not something that is mentioned by the informants at Tangen Polytechnic, where students are described as a homogeneous group of teenagers. In relation to this, however, it should be mentioned that the two groups of students at Tangen and Ørestad respectively, do in fact differ. Ørestad High school is an upper secondary school with a media and communications focus, whereas Tangen Polytechnic is a more practice oriented teaching institution, hosting students in fields such as construction, hotel and nourishment, and hairdressing among other fields. Since my investigations have focused on the buildings as work environments, they have not been concerned with student differences and thus cannot determine whether these differences might affect the teaching options available. At Nieuwegein City Hall, according to Informant 3, there is less social interaction than was initially expected, but it is improving. It is unclear if or how management or employees themselves are trying to increase the affordances 167

for sociality within the setting. None of the informants here has mentioned being aware of any such endeavors. In terms of the building design, it is clear that a lack of a common connecting space on the two largest office floors on the 5th and 6th floors decreases the affordances for sociality within the space. With the staircase ending on the 4th floor, the two upper office floors are not connected to an open atrium space like the one surrounding the atrium and central staircase on the 3rd floor. This means that there are no spaces within these office settings that afford conversational privacy and informal interaction away from the desks of co-workers. Instead, employees working on one of the upper floors are only afforded designated social spaces in the form of office kitchens and meeting rooms. An Over-populated Building Generally, the informants at Ørestad High school are satisfied with the open, visually transparent nature of the building. There are, however, other areas of the design, and the intentions of both management and architect, that cause problems for the users. Many of these issues, though, are related to the increased number of students that now must be accommodated within the building. One attempt to resolve these issues has been by including additional areas in a nearby building. Related to these new areas, an informant points out that the new space initially had dividing walls, but that they have chosen to take them down because the employees and students like working in the open spaces of the main building. Thus, they want the new addition to look as much like the existing one as possible. However, despite the addition of new facilities outside the building, the large number of students in the main building causes a lot of noise and congestion within the setting. Informant 2 offers a possible explanation for the relationship between the architecture and the increasing number of students, a form of a so-called catch 22: Informant 2: “it has something to do with the fact that good architecture attracts us humans. That is probably also a reason why so many people apply to come here. The teachers here probably aren’t better than anywhere else, so why do people want to be a part of this project, right? They want to come out here to something new and hip, and something that architecturally presents itself in a certain way. That in itself can be a problem; that so many seek this out, when there isn’t enough room, right?” Interviewer: “So the architecture is part of the reason why the architecture doesn’t work?” Informant 2: “I think it is, to some extend” Ørestad, Informant 2

Informant 5 notes that he or she really likes the introduction nights, where new students come to visit the school. On those nights, there are not as many people in the building and then the functionality is much better. The informant points out that on those nights, everybody in the building is connected 168

in the space, only separated by the vertical movements up and down the staircase. Then the building really works, the informant states. For some informants, however, the constant visual contact within the space makes it a strenuous place to work. One example is Informant 5, who notes that it is great that someone investigates the “utopian thoughts” of the architects and the intended and unintended consequences they have in practice. The informant argues that: “I think that they, in architecture like this, have thought very little about introverted people. That makes it strenuous, and I think it stresses a lot of people out” (Ørestad, Informant 5). In order to make the building at Ørestad High school a less strenuous place to work, alterations have been made to it over time, as will be discussed below. The Teacher’s Lounge Initially, the space now referred to as the Teacher’s Lounge at Ørestad High school (see Figure 51, p. 155) used to be a shared, quiet space for teachers and students. This made it difficult for teachers to find a space to meet and interact, without being overheard by the students. After the space has been changed to allow only teachers, Informant 5 notes that: “Actually, we have better opportunities now than we did earlier, you know, like when this was supposed to be a quiet area […] for students and teachers, because of some utopian thought. You know, something very equal-like. Then you had to be quiet when you were in here, but it was just, well… it wasn’t quiet. And then if you came down here and wanted to work and be quiet, then you had to be a police officer in relation to how people used it, because it was a nice place to sit and such. […] I think things have more of the function they were supposed to now” Ørestad, Informant 5

The Teacher’s Lounge at Ørestad High school, along with the staff room at Tangen Polytechnic, are great examples of how users are able to change what the building affords them. In both instances, despite the early intentions of management and general organizational culture, the employees have demanded more private spaces that afford a wider range of social interactions, and have been successful in changing the physical aspect of the settings in order for them to be able to engage in more social interactions with their co-workers. The Teacher’s Lounge at Ørestad High school now affords frequent meetings among the employees who use it. Informant 4 points out that: “Informally, it’s often the lounge [we use]. We also use it for meetings sometimes really, if it’s just short meetings, or if you have to make some arrangement, then you also sit there. I really think that’s a place where you run in to each other often” (Ørestad, Informant 4). However, because the space that hosts the Teacher’s Lounge is still open out towards the atrium area, it does not afford the necessary privacy for the teachers to be able to speak about the students. Informant 6 notes that: 169

“I think something we all miss having is a staff room, where we can sit and gossip about students in peace” (Ørestad, informant 6). The Lack of a Staff Room At Ørestad High school, a staff room has never been part of the organization’s intentions with the building. However, having a staff room is mentioned by several informants as something that would make working in the building a lot easier and less stressful. Informant 6 notes that: “… I think it is a management vision that we have to be together with the students at all times, but I think most of the teachers feel a need to have some sort of a private zone. […] Just like the students talk about us, we would like to be able to talk about them” Ørestad, Informant 6

At Ørestad High school, management has specifically asked for a building where teachers and students would use the same spaces and interact with each other at all times. This, however, has proven difficult in practice for the teachers, who need some privacy in order to be able to discuss student-related matters. In addition, informants also express a need for some down-time between classes, where they have the opportunity to take a break from the interactions with the students. Informant 2 argues that the visual contact within the space affords interaction and collaborations between the co-workers, but that: “…it has the opposite effect that we have no common staff room, a place where we can all meet and where you always have some people to talk to. Maybe the [visual contact] compensates for the lack of such a common social room […] that they are so keen on us not having here. I have never understood why. I think it is ridiculous. But that is something they have chosen not to have” Ørestad, Informant 2

While the teacher’s table in the cafeteria affords interaction between some of the employees during lunch, Informant 7 argues that: “…there isn’t room for us all down there, so the question you asked earlier, as to whether it would change something to have a large common room, I think it would. That is, if we all, physically, went into the same room, then you might meet each other more, in different constellations. But, of course, you would still gravitate towards your own groups and all that, right?” Ørestad, informant 7

With Suchman (1987, 1993), there is a useful focus on the socio-material circumstances affording certain possibilities for action among the employees. 170

Suchman’s (ibid.) focus on the particular shows the importance of every aspect of the socio-material surroundings. At Ørestad High school, we see how the decision not to have a staff room results in a lack of affordances for sociality for some of the informants. Having no common place to meet, talk about sensitive or private issues, take a break from the students, or engage in a social community with all groups of co-workers, negatively affects the informants’ opportunities to engage in social interactions within the building to some degree. In addition, it could also be argued that the users simply create different behavior settings to be afforded what they need in order to interact or concentrate, as I have also shown earlier.

171

Analysis Sum-up and Conclusion

In this analysis, I have shown how both open, visually transparent spaces on the one hand, and closed rooms on the other, afford social interactions, albeit often of different types, within the three investigated work environments. I have also shown that the social interactional activities that occur in different areas of the buildings depend on organizational or locally developed culture, or behavior settings. These behavior settings restrict the possible actions within a given space, but they also provide the users with a choice of suitable space to work or interact, depending on their mood or the task to be solved. Furthermore, organizational culture either restricts or encourages different forms of social interactional activities among the employees, and as I have shown, differences in organizational culture among the three investigated buildings have led to very different opportunities for employees to engage in social interactions with their co-workers, especially after work. This, however, also negatively affects the frequency of interactions during work hours. The design of the atria enhances the visual contact within the investigated buildings, and thus, they also afford increased opportunities for random meetings and social interactions among users, by affording cross-spatial interactions and social views. However, the visual contact to and from the staircase and all floors surrounding the investigated atria also occasionally leads to feelings of insecurity or unpleasantness, due to the level of personal visibility within the space.

172

The Staircase as a Specific Spatial Element

In this section, I present findings related to a specific architectural element of great importance related to the design intentions of 3XN architects. The architectural element in question here is the central staircase in its open atrium space. Staircases Within the fields of Environmental Psychology and Environmental Design Research, investigations regarding staircases generally focus on health aspects. These include the number of people using the stairs vs. the elevator; aesthetic interventions to increase use of staircases etc. (see Olander & Eves, 2011; Lee et al.,

2012; Boutelle et al., 2001; Kerr et al., 2001; Burger & Shelton, 2011 and Nieuw-Amerongen et al., 2011 for examples of research regarding the use of staircases).

However, research on staircases using the concept of affordances is limited to person-object affordances, such as Warrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1984) experiments on stair climbing. Here, Warren quantified the affordance of climb-ability as the ratio between leg length and riser height, focusing on body scale, rather than abilities. Other research, however, shows that users perceive affordances for walking on stairs as a relation between stepping ability and riser height (Cesari et al., 2003). Regarding the social aspect of staircases, Valenti (1989) conducted a study on dyadic social walking, partially concerned with walking on stairs. However, for a more general social interaction aspect of staircases, we have to go back to Festinger et al. (1950) and the study on how staircases create increased opportunities for contact between users and thus for the formation of social groupings. To my knowledge, however, no research has been done regarding the affordances of a staircase for social interactions among the users of a given building. In building practice, the central atrium is becoming an increasingly common design feature, with or without a central, connecting staircase. Experience from architectural practice, however, shows that clients in certain parts of the world are worried about spending a large amount of square footage on a space with seemingly no traditional use related to productivity. I want to understand the relationship between the architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intentions and the social interactional activities in this type of 173

setting, in order to determine if and how this type of spatial arrangement can benefit the occurrence of positive social interactions within the space. The Architect and the Staircase In architectural practice, the ability to create settings that enable good and desirable social interactions is often treated as a given. Different spatial elements, such as informal meeting spaces and staircases, are considered instrumental in affecting social interactional activities among users (Houthoofd, 2015; Pasternack, 2009; 3XN, 2010 & 2007), and generally, modern, visually transparent, and open spaced work environments are expected to lead directly to more social interactions and collaborations among users and employees (Maher and von Hippel, 2005; 3XN, 2010). Within the field of architecture and workplace design, the staircase is often referred to as a social instigator, a place where people meet and therefore interact (see Lutyens, 2014; Bort, 2013; Cohen, 2010; Coles, 2013 and 3XN, 2010 & 2007 among many others). The general understanding of staircases in many parts of architectural practice is that simply because people meet in the narrow space of the staircase, they also engage in social interactions upon it. This is also the case for 3XN Architects, where the staircase is described as a catalyst for social life. In an interview conducted with 3XN Principal, Kim Herforth Nielsen, on an earlier occasion, Nielsen states that the firm’s experience tells them that: “When you meet each other on the staircase, you begin to talk more frequently than you would on a flat surface”. The firm also points out that their design of the staircase at Ørestad, as well as in several other buildings, is “about much more than getting from A to B” (3XN, 2013:90). Instead, the spiral staircase at Ørestad High school is “planned as the central meeting place. It is designed to be much wider than would be required merely for transportation purposes” and as such it is not only “a form of connection, but a space in itself” (3XN, 2013:100). However, the above-mentioned beliefs and expectations regarding staircases rarely originate in research-based findings. Usually, the everyday practice of architects does not provide the time or resources to base designs on evidence, considering the vast amount of different spaces that make up a building, as well as the lack of funding for carrying out the necessary investigations. Instead, architects often have to base their design decisions on limited amounts of information regarding the social interactional aspects of design solutions. In this chapter, I intend to fill a small portion of this gap with a focus on the social interactions that occur among users of a staircase. Through an affordance perspective, this part of the investigations focuses on whether the intentions of the architects related to social interactions can be observed on a central staircase within an open atrium space. The content of the chapter is based on an article co-authored with Sønderstrup-Andersen (Sylvest & Sønderstrup-Andersen, in review). What are the Affordances for Sociality of the Central Staircase? In relation to the central staircase, I wondered whether the assumption of this design feature as an instigator of social interactions, as it is seen in many parts 174

of architectural practice, would align with actual social behavior patterns in an investigated building. The hypothesis, partly based on the overall investigations within the three case-study buildings, was that while the staircase at Ørestad High school may provide a space where all the users gather due to their transportation activities, the surrounding spaces, such as landings and the visually accessible open atrium spaces, are just as instrumental in affording social interactional activities among the users of the overall staircase-in-atrium space. For the purpose of this investigation, the following research questions were set up: • What affordances for sociality does the staircase offer its users? • Furthermore, what role does the context of the staircase play in affording social interactional activities within the space? According to Gibson (1986), the environment not only presents itself as functional possibilities, it also invites certain actions due to its particular layout, or what he termed ‘properties’. As I will show in the analysis of the staircase in its open atrium space at Ørestad High school, this constellation of spatial elements invites a range of different activities, such as looking at others by using the staircase and the surrounding atrium railing as a vantage point, among many other activities. Through an observational study using video recordings of the central staircase at Ørestad High school in Copenhagen, Denmark, 24 different types of occurring social interactions were identified. These are presented below, divided into four Interaction Categories; Social Walking, Social Spotting, Social Waiting and Social Encountering.

Figure 56: The central staircase in its open atrium space: A view of the first floor landing.

175

Staircase

Stair landing

Railing

Figure 57: The investigated part of the staircase, stair landing and railing area on the first floor of Ă&#x2DC;restad High school.

Design, Procedure and Participants As mentioned earlier, Ă&#x2DC;restad High school was the last of the three buildings investigated in the overall field study described in this thesis. During the investigations described and analyzed above, and during my presence in the building, I became increasingly interested in the affordances for sociality provided by the central staircase. Consequently, another level was added to the investigations. Here I recorded the general behavior patterns and social interactions of both students and faculty on the central staircase using a small GoPro digital video camcorder mounted on a tripod. The camera was initially placed with a horizontal view of the first-floor stair landing, in order to observe social interactions on and around the landing. After a few initial recordings, we moved the camera to the banister surrounding the second floor, where the vertical view of the first-floor landing, as well as the stairs leading to and from the landing, provided a better view of the interactions in the setting (See Figure 56 and 57). Three full hours of recordings were made during three consecutive days, mainly focusing on the peak hours during mid-morning, lunch and afternoon recess. The conducted video-recordings were carried out as in situ observations of everyday social practices in the setting (Petersen et al., 2012) and became the focus of the sub-study presented here. 176

Findings After collecting the recorded video material, a focused, partial transcription of was compiled of all completed and demarcated social interactions occurring on the central staircase, or to and from the central staircase and its surrounding open atrium space. The findings were coded using the computer coding program, Nvivo. Just like the overall building investigations for this thesis, Nvivo was not used as a grounded theory analysis tool, but instead simply as a way in which to collect, combine and code the many recordings. The analysis presented here consists of an observation condensation, where 409 observations were coded into eight categories of different types of social interactions. These categories were defined during the coding process, where the data was repeatedly reviewed. The eight categories where finally coded into four Interaction Categories. These Interaction Categories are termed: Social Walking, Social Spotting, Social Waiting and Social Encountering. The average number of interactions related to each Interaction Category is shown in Table 3. Where relevant, the Interaction Categories were coded further into sub-categories related to whether the social interactions took place on the stairs themselves, on the stair landing or by one of the railings surrounding the open atrium space (See Figure 57). Finally, the Interaction Categories were analyzed with a focus on the Affordances for Sociality that provide opportunities for social interactions on the staircase and its open atrium surroundings (see Table 4).

Category

No. of Observations

Percentage

Social Walking

11.5 %

Social Waiting

14.7 %

Social Spotting Social Encountering

Observations in Total

213 89

409

52.1 % 21.7 % 100 %

Table 3: Number of observations made under each category and their percentages of the total amount of observations.

The findings of the staircase investigations are presented in the four interaction categories below. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

177

Social Walking Group Cohesion by Speed Adjustment

Stopping to talk

Width of stairs affords Group Cohesion; Group side-by-side walking during off- peak times and triangular group formations

during peak-times. Groups filtrate in and out of each other, but stay together as cohesive unit.

The landing provides the affordance for sociality of stopping to talk on a larger flat surface.

Social Spotting Locate other(s) Navigation

Look at other(s)

Group Formation

The open design affords cross-spatial interactions. Stairs,

landing, and railing thus provide vantage points for locating others and their activities.

Railing areas afford finding a comfortable spot with a social view. The open design affords visual contact between users and thus meeting others and forming dyads or groups.

Social Waiting Group Cohesion

Group Formation

Interactional Space on stairs and landings allows group-members to wait for the rest of the group to catch up while ascending or descending the stairs.

The open design of the overall space, as well as the design of the

stair landings affords users the opportunity to see and wait for

ascending or descending others, in order to ensure a meeting and thus the opportunity for dyad or group formation is afforded.

Social Encountering Meeting

The open design affords meetings on stairs and between stairs and floors because the visual contact allows users to locate

others on or off the stairs while moving through the building. Landings and area by railings affords longer stays when users meet due to the larger amount of flat surface space.

Greeting

Landings provide a narrow social junction and thus afford many

chance meetings and greetings. The stairs function in a similar

manner, with users meeting and greeting one another as they

ascend or descend the stairs. The railing area also affords meetings due to the open, visually accessible design.

Table 4: The four Interaction Categories and their Affordances for Sociality.

178

Social Walking 47 interactions were observed and then coded as different aspects of Social Walking, which amounts to 11.5% of the overall number of observations. The title for this category is inspired by Valentiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1989) work on social walking, but rather than a focus on movement coordination in the form of synchrony, the category encompasses several types of social activities occurring when users ascend or descend a staircase in dyads or groups, such as speed adjustment and group cohesion. Speed Adjustment The findings indicate that dyads try to maintain physical cohesion by walking side-by-side on the same steps of the staircase. If one of the individuals fall behind, dyad cohesion is restored either by one member running to catch up, by one waiting for the other to catch up, or both. One exception to dyadic sideby-side walking occurs when both individuals walk down the staircase while simultaneously looking over the railing, thus forming a vertical dyad. I will deal with this aspect in more detail in the Social Spotting category. Groups of three or more individuals also maintain group cohesion by adjusting their speed to one another. Here, speed adjustment also includes waiting for group members, who have fallen behind when ascending or descending the staircase, as well as members running to catch up with the rest of the group. Groups of three occasionally walk side-by-side if stairs are empty. The general formation layout, however, is that of a triangle, with either all three individuals placed on separate steps, or two individuals walking on the same step in front of or behind the third individual. The data strongly suggests that waiting for others to catch up most frequently occurs on or around the stair landing, an aspect of social interactions that I will return to under the Social Waiting category, as well as in the discussions section. Stops When saying goodbye to each other, members of groups and dyads naturally stop on the stair landing and then walk off in different directions after they enter or exit the stairs. However, the investigations also show that when users ascending or descending the stairs together stop to talk, only to continue together afterwards, this also occurs on the stair landings (76.9%) or 1-3 steps from the landing (7.7%), rather than on the staircase itself (15.4%). (See Figure 58 and 59) â&#x20AC;&#x192;

179

Figure 58: Stopping to say Goodbye

Stopping to say goodbye is a naturally occurring behavior on or around the stair landing. With one or more users entering or exiting the stairs, this becomes a point of separation for the group or dyad.

Figure 59: Stopping to Talk

The landing also attracts stops among groups or dyads, even if they are not separating at the landing.

180

Group cohesion and extended contact Another aspect of the data is that even during peak hours on the busy staircase, users walking in groups of three or more are capable of maintaining group cohesion, simply by filtering in and out of other dyads or larger groups of individuals. The data indicates that staying in horizontal or triangular formation is preferred over ascending or descending in a vertical line, unless all group members are preoccupied with using the staircase as a vantage point to the activities occurring on the ground floor. I will deal with the affordances for sociality related to using the staircase as a vantage point in the Social Spotting category. Groups also maintain cohesion in situations where one or more group members use the staircase for play-like activities, such as sliding down the handrail. In these group constellations, the person(s) sliding down the handrail will either adjust their speed to the walking members, even in the case of the walking members stopping to talk to someone on the staircase, or slide down and wait for the other(s) at the landing. The activity of sliding down the handrail occurs as individual action, as well as in dyads and groups. The most commonly occurring constellation, however, is in dyads where one slides while the other descends the staircase alongside the slider. The open design of the staircase and the surrounding floors affords extended contact between group or dyad members parting at the landing. The data shows that individuals ascending or descending the stairs are still able to continue a conversation with individuals exiting the staircase on the first floor and walking away from the landing. Social Spotting 213 social interactions were identified and coded as Social Spotting (52.1% of all observations made). Most the social spotting observations (59.2%) relate to users using the central staircase and the surrounding open atrium area as a vantage point (see Figure 60 and 61). My observations show that the open design of the setting affords using the entire investigated space as a social vantage point.

181

Figure 60: Vantage Points

Facing the circular atrium space, the stair case and landing affords a direct view down to the often

busy cafeteria area. Around the atrium railing, the users are afforded an entertaining view of the activities on the stairs and the surrounding floors. From the stair case itself, users have a view to the floors they pass, and on the landings, they are afforded a view of approaching others.

Figure 61: Using the visually transparent atrium space as a vantage point.

182

Cross-spatial Interactions One aspect of using the space as a social vantage point is when users look at others (individuals or groups) that they pass while descending or ascending the staircase (see Figure 65). Surprisingly, only 18.2% of these social actions take place internally on the stairs themselves, while the remaining 81.8% take place when users look at others (and their activities) to and from the stairs. I have named these interactions Cross-Spatial Interactions. These are interactions that occur between participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; places in different areas of the setting, such as on the staircase and on a floor surrounding the staircase, respectively. These cross-spatial interactions are afforded by the low design of the railings surrounding the atrium space, combined with the elevation of the staircase up through the entire atrium space from the ground floor (see Figure 62 and 63).

Figure 62: Cross-spatial interactions to and from the staircase and the surrounding railing area.

183

Figure 63: View to ground floor from 2nd floor railing. ÂŠ Mark Goodwin & 3XN.

The observations show that the open design affords easily locating others within the overall space of the staircase, the 1st floor, the railing surrounding all the upper floors, as well as most of the ground floor. Observations related to this aspect show users stepping out to the railing surrounding the open atrium space, or onto the stair landing or stairs to look for a specific other that can then be called out to and joined (see Figure 64). In addition, users use the staircase and landing as vantage points from where to locate unspecific others that the individual can form a group or dyad with, before ascending or descending the stairs. The open design of the overall space thus affords locating the position and activities of others to and from most areas in or surrounding the open atrium space. The users often stop while ascending or descending the stairs, or stand by the railings surrounding the atrium simply to look at the activities going on. The findings indicate that this is related to entertainment, either while waiting for a class to begin, or as a means of keeping occupied while ascending or descending the staircase. 184

Figure 64: Using the staircase and landing as vantage points in order to locate other(s) or to look at activities going on within the space.

The data also shows the occurrence of other social interactions related to the Social Spotting category. This occurs related to navigation including at least two active individuals. Here, the open design of the staircase and the open atrium space offers the affordance of a vantage point from where it becomes possible to view large parts of the building. This affordance, in turn, makes pointing or gesturing towards a place possible (see Figure 66 and 67), thus affording the social act of â&#x20AC;&#x153;[attuning] another person to affordances in the shared environmentâ&#x20AC;? (Valenti & Good, 1991, see also Heft 2007).

Using the staircase for other purposes The findings show how users utilize the staircase, landing and atrium railing spaces for the reverse social action of Social Spotting: Making themselves visible to others. The most common ways of doing this is by playing, or by walking out to a very visible spot to stand or have a conversation before returning to the same floor. The open design of the space affords placing oneself in more or less 185

Figure 65: Look at Other(s)

The open design of the atrium affords a view to others placed on the other side, or on other floors. On the staircase, the intact sightlines ensure a view to the activities on the first floor, as users pass

it ascending or descending, and with that, also a view to the activity on the staircase as users pass it on the first floor. The stair landing affords a direct view of users ascending or descending the stairs as users enter.

visibly accessible locations. The staircase and landings offer the largest degree of visual accessibility, while the railings offer more of a social view combined with a modest amount of privacy from behind. Handrails offer an opportunity for sliding down, while being fully visible on the staircase and the area by the atrium railings affords interactional space (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997) and room for play fighting among dyads or groups, as well as lingering without causing congestion. Social Waiting 60 social interactions were coded under the category of Social Waiting. These correspond to 14.7% of all the observations made. I define Social Waiting as the activities groups, dyads, or individuals carry out as they wait for other individuals in order to maintain group cohesion or to form a new group or dyad, as well as the waiting related to realizing a meeting with another group or individual, without being or becoming part of the same group or dyad. In this sense, the category overlaps with Social Walking and Social Encountering, but is still distinct because it is concerned specifically with the more static activity of waiting. 186

Figure 66: Navigation

The open design and the many intact sightlines of the staircase and landing afford navigation by users pointing others in a given direction.

Figure 67: The staircase provides a vantage point from where to direct others to specific areas within the surrounding building.

187

Figure 68: Small group of students waiting for ascending others at the first floor landing.

Group Cohesion and Formation One consistent feature of the data is that members of dyads and larger groups go to great efforts to form a group or to maintain group cohesion on and around the staircase (see Figure 69). The findings show that groups maintain cohesion by individuals or parts of larger groups waiting for others to catch up when ascending or descending the staircase together. The pattern of data suggests different ways of waiting for others in order to maintain group cohesion: these can be either full stops or stepping slowly in order to allow others to catch up. Full stops occasionally occur on the staircase itself, but this type of waiting for others is usually concentrated at or around the stair landing, even if the dyad or group is continuing up or down the staircase. Another aspect of this is Group Formation. The data shows that both individuals and smaller groups wait by the railing next to the stair landing or on the landing itself for specific or unspecific others with whom they can then form a dyad or larger group (see Figure 68). The findings also indicate that users waiting for unspecific others generally are alone. It is the open design of the staircase and its surrounding open atrium space that affords waiting to realize a meeting with someone approaching on the staircase or one of the surrounding floors. Here, the user(s) wait in order to meet and talk to or greet the individual(s), before forming a dyad or group, or walking off in opposite directions. The open layout of the staircase and its surrounding atrium thus affords stopping or slowing down in order to realize a potential meeting because the design of the setting affords spotting others at a distance. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

188

Figure 69: Waiting for Other(s)

Members of groups and dyads tend to wait for others at the stair landing in order to maintain group

cohesion. The landing also affords a view to approaching others and thus a good place to wait for other(s) in order to form group or dyad.

Social Encountering For the purpose of this Interactional Category, I define Social Encounters as both short greetings and longer meetings. 89 observed interactions have been coded under this category, corresponding to 21.7% of the overall number of observations. The data shows that short greetings can be divided into two spatial categories of different proximities. The physical greetings take place in the passing of two or more individuals on the staircase, the landing or by the railing, and take the form of e.g. a handshake or hug. The distant greetings involve users calling out to greet each other to and from the stairs, to and from different sides of the same floor, across the open atrium space, or to and from their locations on different floors. These greetings are afforded by the open design creating intact sightlines within the space (see Figure 71). The stair landing: A social junction The investigations show that while short greetings occur anywhere, users naturally pass each other in the space, and therefore often on the busy staircase itself, longer meetings specifically gravitate towards the narrow stair landings, as well as towards the railings immediately surrounding the stair landing, where more interactional space is available (see Figure 70 and 72).

189

Figure 70: The stair landing is a social junction that affords meetings between users.

The findings show that even meetings that are initiated on the staircase itself tend to move up or down to the nearest stair landing, or individuals and groups wait for approaching others at the landing in order to interact with them in that location. The stair landing thus often becomes a crowded social junction. However, regardless of the lack of interactional space on the landing, it still affords a large number of meetings. This might be due to the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; proximity to each other, as well as due to the visual transparency to and from the landings. I will discuss the attraction to the landing in more detail later. The meetings occurring here are the cause of much congestion within the space. â&#x20AC;&#x192; A Short Discussion of the Staircase Findings The staircase cannot be considered an interaction-enhancing feature in itself, rather, as my investigations show, the staircase situated within the open, visually transparent atrium space affords a wide range of social interactions as a part of this constellation of objects and architectural elements within the specific setting. The findings related to the central staircase show that one of the most important features of the studied environment, is the visual transparency and the existence of intact sightlines. The affordance of visual contact by the open design, is what provides opportunity for the majority of the observed social interactions. However, future research could also concern itself with the negative aspects of visual transparency within the space. This could be in the form of Prospect-Refuge theory (Appleton, 1975), which might prove useful in order to assess the possibilities and needs for withdrawal in the open, visually accessible space. Of interest here would be questions such as; does the space afford withdrawal for users who 190

Figure 71: Greeting

Both meetings and greetings occur on or around the stair landing due to its nature as a narrow

social junction. More so than meetings, however, short greetings occur anywhere users happen to pass each other.

Figure 72: Meeting

Many meetings initiated on the steps of the staircase move up or down in order to take place on the landing. The landing also affords a place to wait for other(s) in order to ensure a meeting.

191

prefer not to be visually accessible at all times? Does the building afford any privacy to these users as they move around in it? Lastly, is it at all possible for shy or introverted students to attend this high school? Another finding of this sub-study is that there is a distinct attraction towards the landing. This attraction is evident in a large amount of the observed social interaction types. There are several possible explanations, or combinations of explanations, for this finding. The first one I would like to mention is that even though meetings cause congestion at the landing, users might feel like they have the option to move out onto the larger interactional space (Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997) provided on the adjacent floor if necessary. On the steps of the staircase, users have no convenient and neutral place to go. Instead, participants of the meeting would have to negotiate whether to walk up or down the stairs in order to have sufficient space for their interaction. It might simply be much easier to wait at the landing. Moreover, the users might consider it socially unacceptable to block the staircase, but more acceptable to do so at the landing, because it is easier to move aside here, to let the traffic flow again. In order to aid the creation of increasingly humane buildings, which afford positive social activities among the users, it is vital to present investigation findings to architectural practice in a manner that is useful to the context and the design process. In the final part of this thesis, I will present different views on the reflective practice of architects, as well as different methods that would allow for a collaborative practice engaging both architects and researchers. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

192

194

Part 4

Bridging Academia and Architectural Practice

“One of the essential difficulties and fascinations of designing is the need to embrace so many different kinds of thought and knowledge” — Lawson, 2005

Introducing Collaborative Research Methods into the Constraints of Architectural Practice

In a letter addressed to the architectural profession titled: “Why I Left the Architectural Profession”, former architect Christine Outram (2013) points out the lack of focus on users and psychological aspects among the designers of the built environment: “Dear architects, You’re outdated. I know this because I once was one of you. But now I’ve moved on. I moved on because despite your love of a great curve, and your experimentation with form, you don’t understand people. I correct myself. You don’t listen to people. In legal terms, an architect is the all seeing, all knowing, building professional. You are liable for anything that goes wrong with a building but if someone just hates the spaces you design? If someone feels uncomfortable, or cold, or scared? Well there’s no lawsuit for that. I used to think it was impossible for you to respond to an audience in the way that tech startups do. These startups can build a product, release it over the Internet and adjust it based on the feedback they get. It’s an iterative process. Architecture, I thought, was too permanent for that. There was too much at stake, there was only one chance to get it right, there were too many variables. Blah blah blah. But the truth is, most of you don’t try. You rely on rules of thumb and pattern books, but you rarely do in-depth ethnographic research. You might sit at the building site for an hour and watch people “use space” but do you speak to them? Do you find out their motivations? Do your attempts really make their way into your design process? […] Form follows feeling. Now I’m not saying that all architects are dumb in this regard. Residential architects are 197

often quite successful when it comes to building livable spaces. And then there’s Gehl Architects. They’re particularly known and respected for their ethnographic techniques — though these days they seem to focus on master plans and urban regeneration and I don’t think they really do architecture. Do they? […] And as for the rest of the profession. Let’s face it, most commercial buildings, hospitals, and police stations are underwhelming. And even when they are pleasing to the eye, it doesn’t mean they are built to address human needs. […] No wonder architecture has become a niche vocation. You don’t connect with people any more. The problem is that architects seem to pray at the feet of the latest hyped-up formal language. I dare you. Flip through an architectural magazine today. Find any people in the photographs? I didn’t think so. Find plenty of pictures that worship obscure angles and the place where two materials meet? You betcha. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the profession grew up while I wasn’t watching and started throwing more than a cursory glance to the people who would inhabit their buildings. But what really drives it home is that the majority of you never perform post occupancy evaluations! (That one I can’t get over). So if I’m wrong, prove it. For now I remain humbly disappointed” Through a better understanding of the constraints, knowledge, and design processes within architectural practice, this chapter presents a series of practice-oriented research methods developed to contribute to collaborations between practitioners and researchers within this practice. The aim of these collaborative methods is to enable a more research-oriented design process, where external information, as well as evaluation findings, is fed back into the process, and thus has the opportunity to inform it and enable the design of increasingly humane and socially oriented built environments. This chapter focus specifically on the design process at 3XN Architects, the firm responsible for the design of the three investigated case-study buildings. I will start by presenting some different views on practice and the reflective practitioner that engages in design activities within it.

198

The Constraints of Practice

In an argument referring to engineers, Suchman (2001) presents a view of technology production as “processes of sociotechnical ordering involving the alignment of human and nonhuman, rhetorical and analytic, discursive and material elements into more and less stable configurations” (p. 168). In relation to this view, Suchman also argues that “what engineers themselves consider to be the “real work” of engineering, however, takes place in the electronic and paper workspaces of engineering design” (ibid.). I believe these arguments can be applied just as well to architectural practice. Viewing only the specific production of drawing and designing a building as the ‘real work’ of architecture creates a situation in practice, where it is difficult to incorporate new information. Here, the time it necessarily takes to read or listen, and thus be able to incorporate this new information, is not a billable part of a specific design project, and as a result, the architects have no time to engage in the activities that might otherwise have served to inform and strengthen their practice. However, as Suchman (2001) argues “rhetorical and analytic skills are equally and inter-relatedly relevant to engineering practice as a form of technology production, understood both as the progressive development of engineering techniques and the creation of enduring engineering artifacts” Suchman, 2001:174

Informing design practice thus becomes an important task that needs to be undertaken from within practice itself, by engaging in collaborative activities with practice-based researchers, as I will return to later. Research in practice Within their practice, 3XN Architects have had a focus on how ‘Architecture Shapes Behaviour’ for several years (see 3XN, 2010), but now wants to bring this interest or understanding to the forefront of their practice. As such, 3XN now gives 199

primary importance to this idea as a way of both designing and communicating about their buildings. Despite the rather deterministic sounding words of this strategy, the intentions are indeed to move towards designing increasingly humane and user-focused buildings, as well as to communicate the importance and relevance of this approach. As such, the strategy is also intended as a way of setting the firm apart from competitors around the world, as well as to attract high-paying clients and interesting new projects. The increased focus on this strategy is the reason behind the need to develop collaborative practice-based research methods, in order to enable the desired changes within the practice. Thus, this chapter focuses on understanding how the architect works, the complexity of the design process, what types of information are relevant to different stages of the design process, and how practice-based research can be engaged in as a collaborative activity between practitioners and social scientists. “When we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. Often, we cannot say what it is we know. […] Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action […]. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action” Schön, 1983:49

The Reflective Practitioner In his seminal work, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1983), Schön argues that despite the many misconceptions regarding the types of knowledge used among practitioners, the competent practitioner has more knowledge than he or she can express - a form of knowing-in-practice which is mostly tacit. As such, competent practitioners have a “capacity for reflection on their intuitive knowing in the midst of action and sometimes use this capacity to cope with the unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations of practice” (ibid. p. viii-ix). In this reflection-in-action, doing and thinking are complementary. In other words, the practitioner, just like other people, often reflects on what they are doing, occasionally also as they are engaging in the activity or task. Schön describes reflection-in-action as a process consisting of: “…some puzzling, or troubling, or interesting phenomenon with which the individual is trying to deal. As [s]he tries to make sense of it, [s]he also reflects on the understandings which have been implicit in his [or her] action, understandings which [s]he surfaces, criticizes, restructures, and embodies in further action” Schön, 1983:50

Through reflection-in-action, the practitioner is able to deal with the uncertain, unstable, unique, and value-laden nature of design practice. Schön notes that within many professions, reflection-in-action is the core of practice. 200

I believe this to be the case in architectural practice. In this practice, setting, means and ends are not kept separate in the framing of a problematic situation, but rather are defined interactively throughout the process. According to Schön (1983), this experimenting is a kind of action, where implementation is built into the inquiry. As a result, reflection-in-action can proceed in situations of uncertainty and uniqueness so common within architectural practice. However, due to the fact that the architectural profession is still mainly identified with technical expertise, Schön argues that “reflection-in-action is not generally accepted – even by the ones who do it – as a legitimate form of professional knowing” (p. 69). Often, professionals feel uneasy because they are not able to express what they know how to do and thus not able to justify its quality or rigor. However, according to Schön: “The dilemma of rigor or relevance may be dissolved if we can develop an epistemology of practice which places technical problem solving within a broader context of reflective inquiry, shows how reflection-in-action may be rigorous in its own right, and links the art of practice in uncertainty and uniqueness to the scientist’s art of research” Schön, 1983:69

Schön’s argument that many professionals feel somehow uneasy because they are unable to justify the quality of their work in more traditional scientific ways, might be the case for some parts of architectural practice. I would argue, however, that many other parts have indeed been comfortable in using their own experiences, aesthetic values, and beliefs as the basis for their designs. In these parts of architectural practice, the user has often inhabited a very small part of the considerations made, or when users have been considered, this has occurred from the point of view of the architect’s prior experiences, rather than from evaluation findings or collaborative practice-based research projects. Today, there is an increasing demand on architects by clients, developers, and users to present evidence of how well their design decisions live up to the initial intentions. This places the architects in a difficult situation, because they lack training in research methods and analysis related to investigating the user perspectives of everyday life in the buildings they design. As a result, there is a pressing need to develop collaborative practice-based research methods that engage the practitioners in order to increase understanding and thus inform the design process in ways that are commensurable with the activities of the practitioners. I will return to the development of such methods shortly. In the meantime, I will present some of the issues related to collaborative activities between researchers and practitioners.

201

The Gap: Research vs. Practice

“Despite the extraordinary number of POEs that have been conducted, there is still a need [to] find ways to adequately transfer it into a form that can be meaningfully put into everyday practice” Mallory-Hill et al., 2012:12

As mentioned by many researchers over the years (see: Szigeti & Davis, 1997;

Kirkeby, 2009; Wener, 2008; Schön, 1983, among many others), there is a gap between research

and professional practice. As Kirkeby (2009) notes, research-based knowledge is often neglected in architecture, due to the discrepancies between the types of knowledge used in the design process and the findings produced by design researchers. Schön (1983) argues that “practitioners and researchers tend increasingly to live in different worlds, pursue different enterprises, and have little to say to one another” (p. 308). In addition, he points out, that in the widening gap between research and practice there is nothing: “… to guide practitioners who wish to gain a better understanding of the practical uses and limits of research-based knowledge, or to help scholars who wish to take a new view of professional action” Schön, 1983:viii

The problematic gap between research and practice arises because the types of knowledge used within architectural practice differ from the scientific knowledge traditionally viewed as superior to its practical counterpart. In the hierarchical model of professional knowledge: “… research is institutionally separate from practice, connected to it by carefully defined relationships of exchange. Researchers are supposed to provide the basic and applied science from which to derive techniques for diagnosing and solving the problems of practice. 202

Practitioners are supposed to furnish researchers with problems for study and with tests of the utility of research results. The researcher’s role is distinct from, and usually considered superior to, the role of the practitioner” Schön, 1983:26

As such, professional knowledge is often viewed as “the application of scientific theory and technique to the instrumental problems of practice” (ibid., p. 30). This is due, Schön argues, to the dominance of Technical Rationality still embedded in our understanding of scientific and professional knowledge. This positivist left-over creates a divide between research and practice, and creates the idea that scientific research always forms the basis for professional knowledge (Schön, 1983). However, according to Schön (ibid.), design can be viewed as a form of research in itself, because it is a ‘reflective conversation with the situation at hand’, and the practitioner engages in reflection-in-action in order to solve the different problems that arise when working on a task. As such, the concept of reflection-in-action narrows the gap between research and practice: “When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case” Schön, 1983:68

Along the lines of Schön, Lawson (2005) argues that: “… designers rely on information to decide how things might be, but also […] to tell them how well things might work. Because often the same information is used in these two ways, design can be seen as a kind of investigative process and, therefore, as a form of research” Lawson, 2005:119

However, there are obviously still differences between the activities carried out by researchers and practitioners, some of which make collaboration and opportunities for improvement in both fields rather difficult. The differences between researchers and architects, Lawson (2005) argues, is that the researcher tends to focus on understanding underlying rules and processes, while the architect focuses on the desired result. Thus, there is a discrepancy between problem-focused and solution-focused strategies in the collaboration between researchers and architects. According to Lawson (ibid.), architects learn about a problem “through attempts to create solutions rather than through deliberate and separate study of the problem itself” (p. 44), and that: “unlike scientists who describe how the world is, designers suggest how it might be” (p. 112).

203

Collaboration Problems Zeisel (2006) refers to a different gap, that is, the gap between architects and users, but also to one between users and the paying client. With respect to this gap, Cairns (1996) argues that this is not generally something that either client or architect is aware of. And in relation to this argument, Lawson (2005) points out that due to this gap and the remoteness of the designers from the users they design for, it has become necessary to include user requirement studies in the design process. As a result, architects have turned to sociologists and environmental psychologists among other social scientists in order to gain information regarding the needs of their users. However, as Lawson (ibid.) points out, “this liaison between design and social science has not been as practically useful as was first hoped” (p. 86). According to Lawson, this is the result of both designers and social scientists keeping to their own traditional domains, where science remains descriptive and design remains prescriptive, without re-educating each other to be able to engage in more collaborative roles. As a result, the gap between science and practice, and therefore also between designer and users, remains intact in many areas of architectural practice. This is an aspect of design practice that I’m attempting to change by introducing viable and useful methods, through which practice can evolve towards becoming more research-oriented in the sense that day-to-day collaborations between designers and researchers become the typical approach to the overall design process. Wener (2008), however, argues that the gap between researchers and practitioners has already been bridged, at least in the specific area of evidence-based healthcare settings, where design practice has shown an interest in applying a research-based perspective. However, within other areas of architectural practice, on the one hand very few research findings are included in the design process, and on the other hand, as Kirkeby (2009) and Lawson (2005) argue, the existing research findings are often far from being presented in a useful way to the practitioner. A Professional Crisis Despite not having the same status as scientific knowledge within the traditional scientific perspective, practice-based knowledge and the reflections carried out in relation to it, proves very valuable in solving many of the problems that arise in architectural practice. Schön (1983) argues, however, that there is a crisis in the professions, where both popular and scholarly beliefs in the competence of expertise have brought the legitimacy of the professions into question. This is often a result of professionals not living up to the values they state they have, or not holding themselves accountable to certain standards regarding competence and morality: “Both popular and scholarly critics accuse the professions of serving themselves at the expense of their clients, ignoring their obligations to public service, and failing to police themselves effectively” (ibid., p. 11-12). As is probably broadly known, this is also an issue with regard to the architectural profession.

204

Just like we saw it with Till (2009) in the introduction to this thesis, Schön (1983) argues that the problem arises because professionals are not trained for the “complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflicts” (p. 14) central to the world of professional practice. As such, professionals find themselves in situations where they are required to perform tasks they were never educated for. As such, it is relatively easy to understand why Schön’s concept of reflection-in-action has become such a stable within the architectural education and profession. Kirkeby (2009) even notes that: “Our profession is indebted to Donald Schön for breaking away from the concept of knowledge as ‘technical rationality’” and she continues to argue that “the concept of reflection-in-action narrows the gap between researcher and practitioner” (p. 308). I would argue, however, that even though reflection-in-action can be viewed as a form of research carried out through the everyday activities of the practice-based architect, and thus minimizes the discrepancies between earlier hierarchical understandings of knowledge, the research so undertaken still varies greatly in both scope and content from that conducted in academia. Here, research is conducted with the purpose of making findings within a given field, whereas in architectural practice, the research undertaken as a part of the architect’s reflection-in-action is carried out with the purpose of creating an end product. I would argue that perhaps Schön’s concept of reflection in action has in fact stalled the use of research findings and the engagement in research activities within architectural practice, because it has been understood in a way that, once again, allows the architect to retreat to a form of black box (Till, 2009), where additional input from outside the context is viewed as an unnecessary disturbance. Instead, my argument is that the narrowing gap between research and practice provided by the concept of reflection-in-action should be used in order to find viable ways in which to introduce useful knowledge and investigative methods into architectural practice in the form of collaborative activities between practitioners and practice-based researchers. This would result in more informed design, and thus in buildings better suited to host the many different requirements and preferences of clients and end-users. As we shall see later, (Schön, 1983) does in fact present a few methods that are useful for these types of collaborative research activities. Firstly, however, I will present a couple of views on the design process in order to investigate where and how collaborations between practitioners and researchers might prove most fruitful.

205

The Design Process

“One of the essential difficulties and fascinations of designing is the need to embrace so many different kinds of thought and knowledge” Lawson, 2005:13

According to Lawson (2005), the activity of design involves a “sophisticated mental process capable of manipulating many kinds of information, blending them all into a coherent set of ideas and finally generating some realization of those ideas” (p. 14). Lawson compares the designer to a musician and argues that designers do their best work when they are not thinking about the techniques they use. However, he also points out, that even the most experienced designers benefit from lessons throughout their career. Lawson (2005) argues that despite the many attempts by other writers to present the design process as a “sequence of distinct and identifiable activities which occur in some predictable and identifiably logical order” (p. 33), this is not an accurate description of the activities that occur during the design process. Lawson points out that it would be impossible for the designer to know what information to gather at the onset of the design process, because the problem has not yet been investigated at that stage. ”Designers […] want to control the behavioral side effects of the design decisions they make. They want their buildings, open spaces, and objects to meet the social, psychological, and developmental needs of those who use them. This is not easy in our increasingly complex society, where designers often build for strangers and strange groups. The gap between decision maker and user is too great to be overcome by designers using only a personal perspective” Zeisel, 2006:49

206

Zeisel (2006) points out that during the design process, architects work to define problems that require them to add to what they already know. The complex range of problems to be solved during the design process include aspects of technological, psychological, social, ecological, economic, and cultural relevance, among many others. In order not to hinder the creative process by proposing an endless stream of research findings and results, it becomes important to know “what different forms of information are useful to designers, and when in the design process” (Zeisel, 2006:25). To this end, Zeisel includes two forms of relevant information: the first is ‘image information’, which is used to provide a general understanding of important issues, as well as how they might be solved. The second is that of ‘test information’ which is related to the evaluation of the different proposed design solutions. Zeisel argues, that “using information in this two-fold way is remarkably efficient and contributes directly to design as a learning process” (p. 26). Clearly, designers have to gather information about a certain problem at some point, study it, find a solution to it, and finally draw it. These activities, however, do not necessarily happen in that order. As a result, any attempted map of the design process should include “return loops from one activity to that preceding it” (Lawson, 2005:38). In other words, as the architect draws a solution to a problem, that solution might turn out to require more analysis in order to work as intended, or to be cast aside only for a new solution to be developed. In addition, the evaluation of a given solution to a design problem might require changes to the solution. As a result, any map or diagram of the design process should have return loops at each stage. In addition to the fact that the activities of a design process do not necessarily occur in a specific order, Lawson (2005) argues that they might not even be identifiable separate events. “It seems more likely”, he continues “that design is a process in which problem and solution emerge together” (p. 48). As a result, problems become apparent only as the design develops and thus, the idea of what the problem is, develops throughout the process and, as a result, so do the types of information needed in order to solve it. As a result, I consider it necessary to be involved in the design process at the onset, in order to be able to inspire and inform the process throughout the different changing stages and activities. I shall return to the different types of collaborative practice-based methods I believe to be useful in informing the design process later.

207

Narrowing the Gap

Kirkeby (2009) argues that the lack of research within architectural practice is due to the lack of translation between research-based knowledge and what she terms ‘practice-used knowledge’. I would argue that the black-box tendencies mentioned by Till (2009) also play a part in this lack of practice-based research collaborations. These rather common tendencies of turning inwards within architectural practice, however, can also be seen in several examples mentioned by Kirkeby (2009) herself, such as when she refers to architectural practice relying on “a general understanding of what is ‘good’ for people” (p. 310), as well as when she states that “good solutions must be found through an understanding of what well-being of people might be, and thus how an imagined place would feel when you are in it” (p. 311, my emphases added). Another statement that I might be tempted to consider worrying is found with Lawson (2005), who argues that crucial questions related to user satisfaction, building costs, client approval etc. “can only be answered through the passage of time, and the designer must hold their nerve during the process, complete the work, subject it to the test of time and wait patiently for the verdict” (p. 112-113). Or, I would argue, rather than just waiting for the verdict, the designers could engage in collaborative practice with researchers from the social sciences and other related fields in order to be able to inform their design decisions based on evaluation findings from their own earlier buildings, user involvement, and research-findings from other relevant areas. This might, at least to a some extent, minimize some of the uncertainties related to the design. Despite these references to a rather black-box way of thinking, both Lawson and Kirkeby contribute very interesting and useful observations related to the design process, the way architects work, and how the gap between researcher and professional might be narrowed within architectural practice. Lawson (2005) points out, that each designer brings a set of design philosophies, or guiding principles to the design process. These consist of the designers’ motivations, beliefs, values, and attitudes. In relation to this, I find it necessary to add that in architectural practice, all work being produced is done through a team-based structure. As such, the guiding principles of the individual 208

designer become less relevant to the solution than the design philosophy adopted by the firm. As such, all individual designers have to adhere to the guiding principles that form the basis of the overall design strategy within the company. In the case of 3XN Architects, the primary generator or design philosophy of being a humane and user-oriented firm, is what they refer to as ‘Architecture Shapes Behaviour’ (3XN, 2010). This design philosophy is now being brought to the forefront of their practice, as a much more dominant guiding principle than was the case prior to this change, and it is leading to the development of a design process in which architects work in close collaboration with social scientists, as mentioned earlier. As a result, the individual design philosophies of each designer also need to evolve in the same direction in order for the overall principle to be effective within the practice. This means that individual approaches to design problems and processes need to evolve in order to become part of a successful collective whole. In relation to architects, this is best done by inspiring them and creating narratives that introduce them to the consequences of their design for users. Creating narratives around the design practice, the attempted solutions and their consequences for the users is often a useful way of approaching design practice. According to Lawson (2005), the narrative design method helps to cement the design team around a shared world. As such, the narrative might serve to establish a common set of guiding principles within a practice. It is imperative that each individual designer starts the design process with a general understanding of, and interest in, the many ways in which their designs affect users, as well as how users inevitably affect the designs they visit, work, and live in. General underlying environment-behavior knowledge is essential throughout the design process. However, specific knowledge and information is not necessarily useful at the outset of the design process, but rather along the way, related to the development of the solutions and therefore also of the problem. (Lawson, 2005). Kirkeby (2009) raises some really interesting points regarding how research-based knowledge needs to be presented in a form that correlates with the way architects gain insights into new knowledge areas, if it is to be understood and used within architectural practice. Here, she refers to a number of interviews conducted with Danish architects, as well as with Brian Lawson, whom I have referred to several times above. Through these interviews, Kirkeby (2009) points to ways of presenting relevant research findings in a useful way for architectural practice. In a later article, Kirkeby (2011) also raises interesting questions related to the translation between research-based and knowledge used in practice. I have assembled all the thoughts and recommendations in the table below, and elaborated on them in order to make them clear and useful for developing a viable practice-based research method: 1. G raphic Representations — Using graphic representations of research findings is of great importance to the understanding of the architects. — Drawings are an important communication tool, both between practitioners and in the transfer of knowledge between researcher and practitioner. 209

2. Introduction to Case-Studies — Providing personal experience for architects creates a sense of ownership and understanding of research findings. — Presenting context-dependent knowledge, preferably in the form of case-studies, increases the understanding of the findings among the architects. 3. Collaborative Research — Design research projects in a collaborative way that allows the findings to be fed into the design process at relevant times. — Turn knowledge of existing things into ideas about how things could be in order to inspire architects, rather than to force the design in certain directions. In that way, research findings can help the architect develop his or her own understanding of the problem presented. — Develop design tools. Design tools are easy for architects to relate to and work with. These tools should comprise all the research findings and turn knowledge into understanding. It is important to enable the architect to see possibilities, which is what he or she is trained to do, rather than looking for explanations and description. Thus, design tools should be inspirational rather than prescriptive. 4. Irregular and Ongoing Inspiration — Let research findings inspire the framing of the design problem at all stages of the design process, and ensure that this is done in a common language. — Realize that different findings and information might be needed at different stages of the design process, and that this cannot necessarily be predicted at the beginning of the process. Despite the view of the practitioner conducting his or her own research as a part of a reflective practice, Schön (1983) also notes that there are certain kinds of so-called reflective research methods, which can “enhance the practitioner’s capacity for reflection-in-action” (p. 309). These are ‘Frame Analysis’, ‘Repertoire-building Research’, and ‘Research on Fundamental Methods of Inquiry and Overarching Theories’. I find two of these methods especially relevant and useful for the development of ways in which to collaborate with and inform the design process within architectural practice: The first one is that of a ‘frame analysis’. Here, Schön points out that the ways in which the practitioners frame problems determine their attention strategies, the applied solutions, and the values that shape the practice. He argues that the construction of a frame is “superordinate to and longer lasting than the setting of particular problems” (Schön, 1983:310). In the case of 3XN Architects, their new frame is the design strategy, ‘Architecture Shapes Behaviour’. With the awareness of this new frame within the practice, the practitioners also become aware of “the possibilities of alternative ways of framing the reality of his [or her] practice” (ibid.). As such, Schön’s frame and Lawson’s guiding principle can be argued to be two names for the same concept. 210

The second approach mentioned by Schön (1983) is that of ‘repertoire-building research’. This can take the form of a description and analysis of cases which, according to Schön “can help to build the repertoires which practitioners bring to unique situations” (p. 309). I believe that this is how evaluation findings from prior buildings can be fed back into the design process in the form of inspirational descriptions or cases, because this form of repertoire-building research is intended to accumulate and describe “familiar situations, cases, or precedents” (ibid., p. 315). Schön (1983) argues that repertoire-building research in architecture “may go on to analyze how an architect thought about the problem [s]he posed, the solution [s]he found, the domains from which [s]he drew his [or her] language of designing” (p. 316). In addition, Schön (1983) argues that: “In the designer’s conversation with the materials of his [or her] design, [s]he can never make a move which has only the effects intended for it. His [or her] materials are continually talking back to him [or her], causing him [or her] to apprehend unanticipated problems and potentials. As [s]he appreciates such new and unexpected phenomena, [s]he also evaluates the moves that have created them” Schön, 1983:100-101

As such, evaluations of the attempted solutions at several points throughout the design process could be argued to fit well into the continuous reflection-in-action situation of the architectural practitioner. Based on Schön’s arguments, worthwhile evaluation topics might be the following: • The desirability of the consequences of specific design moves and solutions. • The new problems or potentials created by the given design solution. According to Lawson (2005), very detailed tools for assessing design do not improve design standards. In fact, they often turn out to have the opposite effect. However, purely evaluative tools that do nothing in the sense of suggesting possible solutions, are also not useful to design practice. Instead, design tools and recommendations need to present an integrated and holistic approach that is useful to the designers and their activities. Hence, no one aspect of the design can be presented divorced from other relevant considerations. I would argue that in addition to a holistic approach to design recommendations and possibilities, these should also be presented in a way that provide ideas and inspiration, rather than as strict requirements if they are to enable understanding and interest among the designers.

211

Evolving Practice through Design-research Collaborations

As mentioned briefly in the introduction, the amount of collaboration between designers and researchers in architectural practice is slowly increasing (Groat & Wang, 2013; Dye & Samuels, 2015) . Groat & Wang (2013) argue that this reshaping of the contours of architectural practice is due both to the shifting tides of the economy after the 2008 financial crisis, and to the competitive pressure from other firms. They point out, that “in some market areas, many client organizations now expect architects to be able to demonstrate capabilities in specific research-based practices” (p. 5). Groat & Wang (2013) argue that these collaborative efforts between research and architectural practice will “substantially further the long-term vitality of the architectural field” (p. 6). On a more practical level, in the foreword to Dye & Samuel (2015), RIBA (Royal institute of British Architects) president, Jane Duncan, argues that collaborations with academia could increase the types and amounts of funding available to architectural practice, and thus enable the realization of more innovative projects which, in turn, would create a marketing advantage and attract better and more profitable projects. She also points out that “The evidence is here that published and shared research […] can garner intellectual status, client reassurance and peers respect for a practice” (p. vii). Dye & Samuel (2015) argue that collaborations with researchers help architectural practices to get ahead in business, and to access new funding streams on the one hand, but also to advance the knowledge economy of the overall architectural field on the other. Dye & Samuel (2015) believe that research is the key to “helping architects regain some of the professional standing that has been eroded over time” (p. ix). Hamilton & Watkins (2009) also point out that “the typical architect sees part of the traditional role carved away by a varied list of consultants” (p. 3). Architects, they argue, are losing their credibility in the practical world of business reality “not because they lack knowledge, but because they are perceived to lack the rigorous foundations of specific knowledge the clients expect” (p. 4). Providing a broader scope of services within the firm itself, can help to gain more control over the overall design process. This, Dye & Samuel (2015) argue, is achieved by 212

the engagement with research, which can help a practice to “win work, make a stronger case for fees and convince clients that the skills of an architect are of outmost importance to their project, while providing tools that will help them design better buildings” (p. ix). This view is supported by an increasing number of architectural researchers and theoreticians, as well as architect associations and institutes (see for example Hamilton & Watkins, 2009; Augustin & Coleman, 2012; Till, 2009; Groat & Wang, 2013). “You have created a wonderful project, but aside from nice photographs and a good reference, what do you have to show for it?” Hamilton & Watkins, 2009:1

Hamilton & Watkins (2009) argue for the necessity of conducting research and collecting evidence on projects completed within architectural practice, in order to capture how the project has contributed in important ways to the client’s success. This, they argue, will provide the practitioner with reliable information that can help him or her to convince existing clients and consultants of the proficiency of proposed design solutions, but also to be considered more credible to existing clients, and thus more attractive to future ones. However, as was also shown in the introduction, many architects know very little about how to conduct research, because it is rarely taught in the architecture schools (Till, 2009; Dye & Samuels, 2015). Nonetheless, Dye & Samuels (2015) detects a “cultural shift within the profession towards innovation and knowledge exchange” (p. xi). Based on the theoretical, empirical and practice-based findings throughout this project, I have collected a number of methods that can enable practice-based research collaborations through being incorporated into the design process. Frame Analysis In the case of 3XN Architects, their new frame is the statement and company motto: ‘Architecture Shapes Behaviour’. With the awareness of this new frame within the practice, the practitioners also become aware of “the possibilities of alternative ways of framing the reality of his [or her] practice” (ibid.). However, I would argue that in order for this new frame, or guiding principle for that matter, to be consistently developed within the design practice at 3XN Architects, it is vital that all the designers become knowledgeable and inspired to incorporate this framework, or principal, into their individual daily design practice. This is sought accomplished by introducing post occupancy findings, as well as other relevant research findings continuously at the firm in order to inspire the architects to challenge traditional frames and guiding principles, and instead let the new frame guide the design process. Schön (1983) argues that it is useful to carry out frame-analyses in order to allow practitioners the opportunity to reflect on their own frames. This might prove useful at 3XN Architects in order to give all the designers the opportunity to transition from old frames to this new collective frame, placing increasing importance on the focus 213

on user experiences and activities within the built environment. A frame-analysis would naturally be carried out at the beginning of a transition from one set of guiding principles within the practice to another. Repertoire-building Research The second approach mentioned by Schön (1983) is that of ‘repertoire-building research’. This can take the form of descriptions and analyses of cases which, according to Schön “can help to build the repertoires which practitioners bring to unique situations” (p. 309). I believe that this is how evaluation findings from prior buildings can be fed back into the design process in the form of inspirational descriptions or cases, because this form of repertoire-building research is intended to accumulate and describe “familiar situations, cases, or precedents” (ibid., p. 315). I believe that this approach could be used to create a ‘Behavior Design Log’ to complement the ‘Design Log’ already in use at 3XN Architects. A Behavior Design Log would present case-studies of either entire buildings, or of specific spatial elements, as a way of feeding findings and information from previous projects back into current design processes. Using images and very short, but informative texts related to specific findings and lessons learned a Behavior Design Log would be a form of repertoire-building tool that would inspire and inform the architects. User Needs Analysis A user-needs analysis is a form of a pre-occupancy evaluation, carried out either with the known end-users in their original building, prior to the design of the new one, or with similar groups of users as the ones expected to occupy the building, if the specific end-users are not known. A pre-occupancy and user-needs analysis provides information about the requirements and preferences of future users and thus allows the architects to base their design decisions on findings originating in the actual life of specific users. A user-needs analysis could be considered part of the repertoire-building research mentioned above, and would enable a much broader understanding of the people eventually occupying the building being designed. Analysis of Organizational Culture As a part of a viable user-needs analysis, an analysis of the user-client’s organizational culture should be carried out. As mentioned earlier, a good fit between building and organizational culture is vital to the success of the design. Thus, an important part of an informed design process is an evaluation of the client’s organizational culture. Here, necessary information includes; who is the client is and what are their expressed values and needs. However, it is equally important to analyze how the client’s organizational culture and values are translated into the everyday life of users. The way in which the client views collaborations and social interactions among their employees has a major effect upon building use and satisfaction 214

among end-users. In addition, the analysis needs to look at whether the spaces the client wants will actually fit their existent organizational culture, or if there is other, more suitable solutions that will provide a better fit. If the client is adamant about commissioning a building that does not fit the existing organizational culture, it is vital to find out whether they are truly willing and able to change the existing culture. In that situation, it is necessary to help the client to see the opportunities for doing so through specific research findings concerning the organization itself, and through the possible use of different design solutions. Design Solution Evaluation This method consists of continuous evaluations with the designers regarding their problems, the solutions they produce, and whether the human centered guiding principle of the firm can be followed in the solution throughout the design process. During these evaluations, it would be possible to collaborate regarding the desirability of the consequences of specific design decisions and solutions, as well as to engage in collaborative evaluations regarding the problems and possibilities created by a given design solution. Post Occupancy Evaluation As described throughout this dissertation, evaluating finished buildings is vital to learning from prior successes and failures, and thus to the creation of increasingly humane designs. Findings from building evaluations should be presented in several ways. First, specific findings and information should be contributed throughout the design process as needed. Second, overall findings should be presented in the previously mentioned Behavior Design Log, which provides easy access to information for the designers. Finally, the findings should also be presented in reports that provide more in-depth information when needed, and which serve as evidence of the firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research-based approach to current and prospective clients. In addition, evaluation findings should also be contributed as inspiration during design talks, which are held at 3XN on a regular basis.

215

The Benefits of Collaboration

The uniqueness of each design situation within architectural practice means that each new design has to be viewed in a new way in order to ensure that the best possible methods and research findings are being applied to each individual project. This, in turn, makes it difficult to only rely on pre-formulated design recommendations or guidelines. Instead, architectural practice would gain immensely from working closely with design researchers in order to address the particular and unique aspects of each new project. Collaborations between design professionals and practice-based researchers would also bring about a situation, where the immense complexity of each project could become interesting problems to solve in interdisciplinary teams. In addition, collaborations between architectural practice and environmental psychology would enable an increased focus on end-users, and thus minimize one of the most commonly occurring criticisms of architecture as a profession. The presented ways of engaging with architectural practice, as a part of practice, allows researchers to collaborate with designers in a very different way than has traditionally been the case within applied research. Thus, the practitioner is not viewed merely as a user of the researcher’s products and findings. Instead, the practitioner contributes to the collaborative research process by revealing the ways of thinking and framing problems that he or she applies in practice. In addition, the reflective practitioner draws on what Schön (1983) refers to as ‘reflective research’, created in this collaboration, as something to aid the practitioner’s own reflection-in-action: “Reflective research requires a partnership of practitioner-researchers and research-practitioners” (Schön, 1983:323).

216

Theoretical, Empirical, and Practice-oriented Discussions

Limitations to Gibson’s Approach Costall & Richards (2013) argue that one of the limitations of Gibson’s concept of affordances is that “although it is relational, the relation is restricted to the agent-object dyad” (ibid. p. 86). They point out that this dyadic approach is a serious problem in the theory, and argue that “the affordance of any artifact is not confined to that object in isolation” (ibid.), but that it instead depends on a whole arrangement of other objects and events within a practice setting. In addition, Costall (2012) argues that affordances are not merely relative to the animal as a mere observer, but, rather, “to the animal as agent” (p. 88, his emphasis). Even though Gibson often “framed the issue of affordances in terms of perceiving rather than acting” (Costall, 2012:88), Costall points out that “it is often only in acting upon things that we discover or reveal or even create what it is [the objects] really afford” (ibid.). Furthermore, in relation to mutuality between animal and environment, Costall (1995) argues that in Gibson’s work there is both an attempt “to argue for mutuality and also to insist that affordances are fixed and pre-existing, just waiting […] for the appropriate animal to come their way” (p. 475). He goes on to point out that “it is as though there were two theories of affordances” (p. 476, his emphasis), i.e. one that treats meaning as directly comprehended through observation, and an alternative model where “perception was treated not as primary or exclusive, but as an aspect or phase of activity” (ibid.). Direct observation, however, is the affordance view that has formed most of the subsequent research within the field. Another critique of Gibson’s concept of affordances is found in Shotter, quoted in Costall & Richards (2013). Shotter argues that: “…the beings in Gibson’s world are depicted merely as observers, not as actors. […] They may move about, but they do not act; thus rather than ‘makers’, they are presented as merely as ‘finders’ of what already exists” Shotter, 1983, quoted in Costall & Richards, 2013:87

217

This, however, is where Costall & Richards (2013) argue that objects have canonical affordances, and that objects thus become objectified and already embodied with intentions, as I have shown in the first part of this thesis. An additional critique is presented by Pedersen (2014), who argues that Gibson’s description of affordances presents a “dominant environment in terms of providing stimuli to be reacted to. The only thing that prevents Gibson from falling in line with all other theories within the stimulus-response realm is his understanding of the reciprocal relation between environment (affordance) and perceiver; the environment is only activated as affordances when encountered by a perceiver who is able to perceive its affordance qualities” Pedersen, 2014:35

Thus, there are hurdles to be overcome when investigating social activities through an affordance perspective, as I will discuss below. “The concept of affordances was a serious attempt to put meaning back into the world, within a relational ontology. Yet, despite this attempt […] the social, it seems, remains under suspicion, and must at least be held in check” Costall, 1995:477

The Social Aspects of Affordance Theory In an untraditional approach to the concept of affordances, I have argued that it is both possible and relevant to link Gibson’s (1986) concept directly to social interactions and thus I have shown the relevance of Gaver’s (1996) concept of affordances for sociality. Brunelli (2014) cites Ingold (2000) and argues: “Gibson’s work bridges the historical gap in many disciplines between human beings seen as “organisms within systems of ecological relations” and as “persons within systems of social relations””. Based on this background, as well as arguments presented earlier in this thesis, I find the coupling of the theory of affordances with social interactions to be relevant not only theoretically, but also through its empirical applications. Moreover, applying the concept of affordances to design is believed to be both useful and relevant for architectural practice. The concept of affordances for sociality is relatively easily applicable to practice, and thus it has the potential to benefit architects, clients and users alike. However, there are still parts of affordance theory that cause problems when looking broadly at how social interactions are afforded within the socio-physical, or sociocultural environment. Here, the cultural aspects of our everyday social life, such as the organizational culture present in work environments, cannot be defined as an invariant object, and thus, according to affordance theory, it has no affordances. Heft (2007, 2001) argues that this problem, 218

as well as many other problems within ecological psychology, can be overcome by a synthesis between the concept of affordances and that of Barker’s (1968) behavior settings as mentioned earlier in this thesis. It could be argued that by including a behavior setting perspective in the investigations of social interactional activities, I have made Suchman’s (1987) situated action perspective redundant. Behavior settings are indeed situations in themselves. However, I believe that the situated approach allows a specific focus on the particular, and as such, it becomes possible to look not only at settings, but also at particular situations and circumstances occurring within these settings. As I have shown in the analysis, the particular often has a major effect on the overall use of a space, but also, I would argue, on the development of specific behavior settings. This occurs in situations such as when attempted suicides change the participants of a behavior setting, as I have shown to be the case in Nieuwegein City Hall, or when a delayed construction schedule changes the way particular settings are used, as we saw in relation to work and staff rooms at Tangen Polytechnic. According to the findings I have presented in this thesis, affordances are not only physical features of the environment and building elements. Rather, I view affordances as aspects of the built environment, which support social interactions in relation to the sociocultural practice, or behavior setting, of which they are a part. Overall, I have found that affordances are part of sociocultural contexts, where they evolve dynamically. That is, they are neither essentially nor causally given. These arguments, combined with the usefulness of the concept of affordances for sociality when studying the socio-functional aspects of a setting, have allowed me to apply a social interactional perspective to Gibson’s theory of affordances. In combining affordances with a situated behavior setting approach, as presented in this thesis, it becomes possible to investigate individual, social, and cultural aspects of everyday social life within the built environment. The Affordances of Visual Transparency? One might argue that it is impossible to talk about the affordances of visual transparency, since air is indeed no invariant or sturdy material, such as for example a glass wall that provides the affordance of look-through-ability, or even a substance, like water that is shaped by solid materials. According to Gibson (1986), the perceiving of affordances, material and social alike, is lawful and “based on the pickup of information in touch, sound, odor, taste, and ambient light” (p. 135), but how does this pertain to the design of an environment creating opportunities for visual contact by providing intact sight-lines between crucial elements and areas, such as the staircase and the surrounding, open atrium space? Gibson argues that air is a medium rather than a substance, and thus does not have affordances. Fire, however, is defined as an event and does have affordances. But just like fire affords warmth and water affords drinking to stay alive, so does air afford breathing. Gibson’s (1986) argument for assigning affordances to fire, but not to air, is that the early humans learnt to control fire 219

in order to be afforded a range of different thing, such as warmth, illumination, cooking, and tool making among other things. I would argue that at least to some extent, we also control air in order to be afforded different things. As such, we cool it through air-conditioners, heat it through radiators, create wind-tunnels, and shelters to keep the air still. In addition to how air affords breathing, it also affords seeing through. Thus, in terms of design, this is one of the affordances that the architect does indeed control in order to have it afford a number of different activities. As I have shown in the analysis of the empirical investigations, one of these activities is engaging in visual contact. This I have attributed to the affordances provided by the low design of the railings, as well as the elevation of the staircase, which affords views to and from the different floors surrounding the atrium space. As such, it could be argued that air does indeed have affordances, in that the visual transparency affords a controlled view to specific surrounding areas, people and activities. Air, in this view, is not an absence of material, but rather the presence of an element, made up of a range of different particles that, among other things, affords views within the built environment. Against Cognitivism This thesis is an attempt to contribute to the move away from traditional representational views on perception of our socio-physical environment, still present in many parts of modern psychology. Gibson’s (1986) theory of affordances was an early attempt to rid the field of dualisms between body and mind, as well as between nature and culture. Costall & Leudar (1996) note that: “in their reaction to cognitivism, researchers have come to shift the focus of study from cognition to action, and to emphasize the essentially situated nature of activity” (p. 101). However, they also argue that “despite this growing opposition, cognitivism remains the dominant theoretical orientation within many of the human sciences, most certainly in psychology” (p. 102). According to Costall & Leudar (1996), cognitivist psychology and its belief in formal representations experiences major problems when trying to explain ordinary human activities. Here, they point out, Suchman (1987) offers an alternative account, where “activities are not controlled by prior cognitions but improvised in situ”. Suchman’s situated action approach points to the ongoing, mutually constitutive relationship between the individual and the world. According to her, activities are not supported by background mental assumptions. Instead, the activities are supported by “the world itself” (Suchman, 1987:46) and it is this world, the “action’s actual circumstances” (p. 47), that affords different kinds of actions and interactions. As argued by Costall & Leudar (1996), “situating action can serve both as a critique of cognitivism and an alternative approach to research and theory” (p. 108). Suchman (1993) opposes cognitivism, and the “enterprise dedicated to explicating those processes of perception and reasoning understood traditionally to go on inside the head” (p. 71). Rather, she is interested in understanding what an alternative view of cognition might be, and points out that her point of departure 220

is within the theoretical fields that are “dedicated to constructing accounts of relations among people, and between people and the historically and culturally constituted worlds they inhabit together” (ibid.). With a focus on the particular, Suchman (1987) argues that retreating into abstraction is cognitivism’s greatest mistake: “The intellectual tradition of cognitive science, in particular applied logic, has taken abstract structural accounts as the ideal representational form. An adequate account of any phenomena, according to this tradition, is a formal theory that represents just those aspects of the phenomena that are true regardless of particular circumstances” Suchman, 1987:179-180

Just like Gibson (1986), Suchman (2001) argues against the traditional dualities related to the material and cultural aspects of human life. She states that “the critical project of articulating those consequences is accompanied by efforts to put forward alternate conceptions that rejoin materiality and sociality into a single subject matter” (p. 166).

221

Method Discussions and Critique

The methods applied in the empirical investigations undertaken for this thesis have all proved useful for investigating the situated, everyday social life of the informants in the three case-study buildings. In particular, the multi-method approach used in these investigations has resulted in interesting and useful data and findings. However, if we look to Suchman (1987), it is argued that: “situated action cannot be captured empirically through either examples constructed by the researcher, paper and pencil observations, or interview reports. Analyses of contrived examples, observations, or interviews all rest upon accounts of circumstances that are either imagined or recollected” Suchman, 1987:109

Instead, she advocates the use of video-recordings only in order to capture situated actions, and a later video-analysis of the recorded material. The reasons stated for this is that if the investigator sets out to look for certain interactions, and notes those down, the record will be limited to those accounts of the action or activity. In other words, only the activity that fills in the template will be recorded. The structure of the action, therefore, will be decided in advance, and the method will ensure that the structure is what is found. In addition, Suchman (1987) notes that any mistake made in the record of the observed activity can only be corrected if there is a video-recording of the given activity. She goes on to argue that the video record is not contingent on either our own, or our subjects’ interpretations of the activity carried out. Furthermore, she states that: “…we need to begin with a record of events which is not pre-judged as to its analytic interest either in advance or in the making” (Suchman, 1987:114). Nevertheless, it could be argued that because the researcher chooses certain activities and areas to record, he or she has indeed pre-judged which areas should be of interest for a given study.

222

Suchman also points out that: “… in so far as actions are always situated in particular social and physical circumstances, the situation is crucial to action’s interpretation” (ibid., p. 178). Here, it could be argued that the limited view related to the frame of a video-recording does not afford the necessary broad view of the entire physical environment or situation of a given action. Also, given the limitations of video-cameras recording only what occurs in the specific situation, combining interviews with participant observations as a part of a multi-method approach, creates the opportunity of gaining at least some insight into the overall organizational culture and rules of a specific setting. This, I would argue, proves useful in the interpretation of many of the observed activities and situated social interactions within the three investigated buildings. In addition, the multi-method approach also compensates for any shortcomings associated with the individual methods. Critique of Focused Ethnography The image of ethnography continues to be shaped by classic anthropological ethnography, and concerns have been raised regarding the validity of the findings gained through focused ethnography due to the time and scope constraints of the data collection part of the method (Muecke, 1994). As Knoblauch (2005) states, “only long-term field studies, it seems, epitomize what may rightly be called ethnography” and ethnographic studies that vary from this “appear to fall short or to be ‘deficient’” (p. 4). However, in agreement with Knoblauch’s (2005) sociological description of focused ethnography, Wall (2015) argues that rather than being the form and amount of data collection, it is the focus on cultural understandings and descriptions that define ethnography. Evaluating Social Use of Buildings R Related to the earlier described lack of a social perspective in the field of building evaluation, this thesis has demonstrated the necessity of including a social perspective to the method of Post Occupancy Evaluation, thus creating a social evaluation method. However, given the high standard of most built environments in Scandinavia and a large part of Northern Europe, these settings might lend themselves more readily to an in-depth investigative focus on the social aspects of everyday life. Such a focus on social interactions might be considered of lesser priority in parts of the world where users and evaluators are still forced to focus on basic design related aspects, such as lack of daylight for office workers, standards related to air quality, etc. However, even with a main focus on the more technical aspects of the built environment, I would argue that a social focus would still be both useful and relevant, and could be incorporated on a smaller or larger scale in any building evaluation.

223

Informants During the analysis of the data from the empirical investigations, it became clear that disregarding the additional staircase investigation, I obtained more information from the informants at Ørestad High school. One way of explaining this could be that this was the last building I investigated, and thus I knew better what to look for, as well as how to get informants to talk about these specific issues. However, the lesser amount of information gathered at especially Nieuwegein City Hall might also be related to at least some level of a language barrier. Although informants here did speak English, the answers they provide are considerably shorter and less descriptive than the ones provided by the informants at Ørestad High school. Another issue related to the informants presents itself in relation to the selection of participants at Ørestad High school. During the investigations here, it became clear that even though I had initially selected at least one volunteer participant from each of the three work rooms within the building, I ended up without an informant from Teacher Room 3 on the third floor. This was the case even though one of the informants was indeed assigned to this room. However, as I have also shown to be the case in the analysis, the informant did not feel comfortable in that work room setting, and had therefore decided to use one of the other work rooms, as well as the Teachers’ Lounge, instead.

224

Implications for Design Theory and Practice

Collaborations between designers and researchers are vital in order to ensure buildings that afford a higher degree of social interactions and thus contribute towards an increasingly humane environment for the users in terms of positive social climate, opportunities for interaction, and ease of collaboration. Using Gibson’s theory of affordances, extended to affordances for sociality and seen as parts of specific behavior settings, this study presents a new and useful approach to the design and evaluation of buildings and the spatial elements within them. This approach could have widespread implications for design practice by enabling the architect to consider the social implications of spatial design, as well as the connections and transitions between different architectural elements and areas, including their affordances for sociality among the users. Related to the study of the staircase, the findings show that despite clear architectural intentions, the staircase it not necessarily used as expected. Despite what often sounds like rather deterministic premonitions of the types of behavior a space or architectural element will afford, the users situated within the sociocultural practice of a place, ‘misuse’ settings in ways that are considered appropriate or that help them carry out specific activities. One example of this is the lack of use of the staff room at Tangen Polytechnic, or employees eating in front of their computer at Nieuwegein City Hall. Another is that the shape of the staircase and its handrails at Ørestad High school invites play-like activities, such as sliding down the handrails or play fighting on the steps. These activities become interesting because they show that the affordances of spatial elements and areas invite other forms of social use than the ones intended by the architects or management. Most important in relation to the staircase is the finding that the users center many of their interactions on or around the stair landing. This is in direct contrast to the intentions and expectations of the architects of the building, as well as many architects in general, who operate with an understanding of the staircase as a social instigator and a place that attracts meetings and interactions in itself. I would argue that the cross-spatial interactions made possible by the design of the staircase situated within the open atrium space, are much more 225

relevant for the designers than the ideas about interactions occurring on the steps of the staircase. In fact, my findings show that the design of the building with the staircase running up through the open atrium space is what affords cross-spatial interactions there between areas on and off the staircase, as well as between areas on separate floors or on opposite sides of the atrium space. As such, the number of interaction possibilities afforded within this type of building design is far higher than the architect expects, and thus also far higher than what is communicated to prospective clients. As mentioned above, the presented study shows a discrepancy between architectural intentions related to social interactions and the everyday use of the staircase in question. Therefore, I argue that architectural practice should define and think of spatial elements, such as the staircase, in a different way than at present. The staircase is not just a spatial element used to ascend or descend a building, but also a form of interface to the surroundings. The staircase does have a function on its own, but the affordances for sociality afforded by this architectural element also depend on the layout and organization of the building in which it is placed, as well as on the users using it. As such, all architectural elements should be thought of as a part of a larger context, or behavior setting, rather than interaction-enhancing elements in their own right. This would provide a much more accurate picture of how design-element constellations afford social interactions in combination, rather than by themselves.

226

Future Research

A student perspective In future investigations, it would be very interesting to include interviews with the student users of the staircase at Ørestad High school about their reasons for and thoughts about interacting on or around the staircase and its landing. Unfortunately, this was not a possibility in the present study, where the overall focus was placed on the settings as work environments, and thus only included employee perspectives. However, whereas I have shown that the employees often avoided the busy central staircase, this represents the only transportation option for the students. As such, it would be interesting to investigate their views of the staircase, as well as of the surrounding atrium spaces referred to by the employees as ‘belonging’ to the students. Boundary Objects In future research, it would also be interesting to look at the affordance for sociality of the staircase and its attachments, like the landing, and discuss affordances for sociality in the light of the concept of boundary objects. According to Star & Griesemer (1989), a boundary object can interact with members of different social groups but to different ends for each group. And according to Wenger (1998), boundary objects also create opportunities for coordination without consensus, because they allow for the reframing of a person’s local understanding within the context of collective activity. This relates itself well to the present study of the staircase, as it is used by both students and faculty, but with different motivations and frequencies. Simultaneously, the users also use the staircase for their individual activities that obviously differ from person to person, but always remain a part of the overall social context of the staircase and its surrounding areas. In terms of the collaborative methods developed for architectural practice, these are now being applied and tested to determine how they work in practice. This work will be ongoing for a number of years, in order to test the collaborative methods during the design of several different types of buildings, as well as in order to be able to feed evaluation findings back into the design process for future, comparable projects. 227

228

Conclusion

“Architecture is thus shaped more by external conditions than by the internal processes of the architect” — Till, 2009

Conclusion

In this thesis, I have presented a four-fold problem related to social interactional activities in work environments. The thesis advances environmental design research by a further development of useful theories within the fields of environmental and ecological psychology, as well as by the development of viable methodologies for evaluating finished design solutions in terms of the opportunities they provide for social interactions and by creating the opportunity to feed findings related to actual user activities back into the design process. I believe there is a lack of focus on how the shared physical environment affords social interactions among agents within both social sciences and architectural practice. Using affordance theory, extended to a situated view of the affordances for sociality offered within specific behavior settings, I have presented a new and useful approach to the design, investigation, and evaluation of both buildings and specific spatial elements and thus contributed to the body of knowledge within both environment-behavior research and architectural practice. In doing so, I have argued that it is possible, relevant, and useful to couple Gibsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1986) theory of affordances with a situated approach to social interactions. And I have thus shown the usefulness of integrating affordance theory, expanded to the concept of affordances for sociality, with a situated approach to interactions within different behavior settings. This integration provides a broader view of how particular situated social interactions are afforded through the design of the buildings, as well as how they are affected by organizational and locally developed cultures. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

231

Theoretical Comments

The Concept of Affordances Due to Gibson’s (1986) failure to include social aspects into affordance theory, others have also called for a social use of affordances. However, as I have shown in this dissertation, the majority of work on the concept of affordances focuses on either person-object affordances, or person-person affordances, as well as, to a much lesser extent, on canonical or normative affordances. Thus, very limited amounts of research have been conducted concerning the relationship between the affordances offered by the environment and its users, in terms of social interactions. I have shown that it is both necessary and relevant to expand the concept of affordances further; from the person-person relation of social affordances to a broader understanding that also includes object affordances related to social interactions. Even though Gibson’s theory is one of perception, I have shown that the concept of affordances is able to encompass a social interactional perspective in part because Gibson himself recognized that no distinction can be made between the natural and the social world. As such, Gibson’s focus has been shown to be on both the material side and the social side of human activity. In order to expand the concept of affordances to also include social interactional aspects of everyday life in the built environment, I have used Gaver’s (1996) concept of ‘affordances for sociality’, but further expanded it to a situated, behavior setting perspective. And I have shown how Heft’s (2001, 2007) synthesis between affordances and behavior settings, again expanded to Gaver’s (1996) affordances for sociality, provides a major part of a useful approach to the investigation of the variety and diversity of everyday social life within work environments. Canonical Affordances Furthermore, I have included Costall’s (1995; 2012) concept of canonical affordances, which distinguish between affordances in general and the conventional, normative affordances of a certain object. Canonical affordances, thus, do not refer to the perception of specific affordances by any individual person, but 232

instead to the shared perception of affordances developed through our collective daily activities in a given setting. As such the affordances of an object depend on both physical and cultural context of the settings we partake in and only become meaningful in the total context of these settings. This means that co-inhabiting others affect perceived object affordances within a specific setting or context. Through these co-inhabiting others we learn not only what an object happens to afford, but also what it is meant to afford. We are thus presented with a situated view on affordances as emerging through collective activities within a specific context. Behavior Settings As I have shown in this dissertation, Barker’s (1968) behavior setting framework lends itself well to a situated, affordance-based analysis of social interactional activities within the built environment. Like Gaver’s (1996) concept of affordances for sociality, Barker’s (1968) theory of behavior settings refers to inanimate features that support the intended activities of the setting participants. As such, I consider it useful to combine these approaches and thus to view affordances as a part of the total eco-social environment. Where Gibson’s theory of affordances falls short of providing us with a way to look at what the specific culture of a place affords us, behavior settings, combined with a situated canonical affordance approach, provide a viable way of understanding how culture affords certain activities through shaping the behavior setting of which these activities are a part. By showing that behavior settings are sociocultural practices occurring in specific sub-settings of overall environments, I have clarified how a social, situated, and canonical approach to the synthesis of behavior settings and affordances provides a viable way to investigate both individual and cultural aspects of particular social activities in the built environment. Using this combined approach, has enabled an understanding of the effects that culture has upon in situ social interactional activities. I realize, of course, that there are some epistemological concerns regarding a combination of an ecological and situated perspective on the one hand, and a behavior perspective in the other. However, given Heft’s (2001; 2007) work on combining the concepts of affordances and behavior settings and thus providing a viable way of analyzing the affordances provided by places, rather than by objects and persons alone, I believe that it is both possible and useful to work with a combined ecological perspective encompassing both a situated view on affordances for sociality and a behavior setting perspective. Situated Action The concept of affordances can be viewed as a form of situated approach in itself, if compared to different cognitive approaches relying on mental representations of the surrounding environment. However, I have found it necessary to introduce a pronounced situated and practice-oriented perspective, due to the importance I have shown the particular to have in our everyday social lives. Suchman’s (1987) approach to situated actions has proven useful in the investigations and analyses of everyday situated social interactions among 233

employees because the situated approach places a radical emphasis on particular circumstances within which actions and interactions take place, as well as how these socio-material circumstances afford different forms of interaction between actor and environment, but also between several actors co-present in a given setting. Organizational Culture In this thesis I have shown, that despite what many of the theories within environmental psychology states (see for example Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997; Kabo et al., 2015; Hua et al., 2011) social interactions do not depend on proximity, amount of interactional space, and spatial layout alone, but to a large degree also on specific organizational culture. While social interactions in the built environment are indeed afforded through the design and layout of the physical space, the organizational culture of the investigated work environments also plays a large role in affording social interactions among employees. Shared understandings within a given setting form social constraints on appropriate actions and interactions in the particular, unique situation. And, as I have shown, organizational culture creates specific situations and rules of conduct that guide activities within the three investigated work environments. In addition, different locally developed sub-cultures within the three overall settings display their own distinct norms and rules for social interactional activities within different rooms and areas. Related to the importance of organizational and locally developed cultures among employees in the investigated buildings, including the concept of behavior settings has proven useful in the investigation of social interactional activities within the many specific settings that make up a work environment. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

234

Building Evaluation & Empirical Findings

Social Building Evaluation Method As a part of this thesis, a practice-oriented social building evaluation method has been developed and applied to three case-study buildings. The expanded concept of affordances has proven applicable to building evaluations where both the intentions of the architect in terms of designed opportunities for social interactional activities and the actual everyday occurrences of such activities has been assessed. Applying a social perspective to the evaluation of everyday life in the built environment contributes to the development of useful building evaluation methodology, and points to the lack of a social aspect within traditional building evaluations. Empirical Findings Through the empirical investigations in the three presented Northern European work environments, Tangen Polytechnic, Nieuwegein City Hall, and Ørestad High school, I have shown that the combination of building and informant observations, activity mapping, and visual recordings on the one hand, and the in-depth interviews regarding reasons and thoughts related to the observed actual behavior patterns on the other, results in a reliable and useful method of collecting data related to social interactional activities within the built environment. Furthermore, while the methods used have proven useful in relation to evaluations practices, the relatively short time span of focused ethnography has proven to be efficient and commensurable with the time constraints of architectural practice. Findings in the three case-study buildings presented include the importance that organizational culture has for the users’ possibilities to engage in social interactions, as well as how co-location and preference related to a specific area, room, or desk decreases the users’ activity spheres within the buildings and, thus, also decreases the frequency of social interactions between different user groups or departments. Related to the study of the staircase at Ørestad High school, it was found that the interactions that occur on the staircase are related much more to 235

the context within which the staircase is placed, and the visual contact to and from these surrounding areas, rather than to the staircase as a separate architectural element. Thus, the staircase when viewed as a part of the overall open atrium context has been shown to be a much more robust spatial element in terms of affording social interactional activities within the space than expected by the architects. Staircases that are designed as a part of an open atrium space, thus, can be used for a much wider variety of social activities than staircases that have no visual contact to surrounding areas. As such, it is much more conducive for the architects to view and talk about their contributions to social activities by viewing specific design solutions in their surrounding socio-physical context, rather than as isolated objects within the setting. Based on the empirical findings, it is argued that an initial focus should be placed on the organizational culture and how culture creates behavior settings that afford a greater or lesser degree of social interactional activities. In addition, it is argued that the focus of design should be on context and spatial transitions, rather than on specific architectural elements within a given space. Such a focus on context would enable the architects to consider the social implications of design, and thus afford increased amounts of positive social interactions among users. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

236

Application to Practice

In this thesis, I have also investigated how to apply research-based methods and findings to architectural practice, which might prove useful to practice itself, clients, and end-users, as well as to other researchers within the field of environment-behavior research. The project methods and findings have the potential to inspire innovation in the broader design practice, by providing viable and useful methods for investigation, evaluation and application, which enable a narrowing of the gap between research-based knowledge and knowledge used in practice. The findings and methods thus allow for an innovative expansion of the methods and approaches used for problem-solving in the design process within architectural practice. As such, they provide an opportunity for the design of increasingly humane environments that live up to user and organizational demands related to work environments that afford collaborative, social interactional activities, and a positive social climate. Because the findings and developed methods allow architects to base their design decisions on research-based knowledge, rather than on values and experience alone, it enables the design of increasingly humane buildings. Credibility and Business Opportunities In addition, the project creates credibility for 3XN Architects immediately by contributing to the development of a research-based collaborative approach to design, which provides the opportunity to present the firmsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; investigative methods to prospective clients on the one hand, as well as evidence to support specific design decisions throughout on-going projects on the other. The resulting designs thus become better examples of the firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design abilities and traditions, which in turn attracts new interested clients. In the longer term, however, it also contributes to setting the firm apart from other architectural practices, thus creating better business opportunities. If architectural practice is to regain some of the lost control over design projects, it is vital that the architects start to take control of building functionality 237

– not only regarding material aspects, but also regarding sociocultural aspects. The idea that form follows function should be taken seriously and must permeate the entire design process in order for the architect not merely to be regarded as a ‘façade joiner’ (Jacobsen, 2014), entrusted with limited control over the overall building solution. Understanding Design Solutions More Broadly Within architectural practice, many firms have developed specific ways of communicating the most important aspects of their designs, often highlighting aesthetics, material sustainability, or functionality and purpose. However, as I have shown in this thesis, these firms often do not engage in investigating building functionality or use, and as a result buildings and specific spatial elements within the built environment are often described and discussed solely on the basis of the architect’s experience and personal views. As I have shown, this can limit the understanding and subsequent description of the functionalities of entire settings, as well as certain vital elements within the buildings. These elements and design solutions, as it turns out, are often more robust in relation to affording social interactional activities than the architects are aware of. As a result, the lack of evaluation practices and other collaborative activities between researchers and architectural practice not only result in less humane built environments in some cases, but also in a lessened ability on behalf of the architects to articulate and communicate the positive effects of their designs.

238

References

3XN (2013): 3XN Architects. Seoul: Archilife. 3XN (2010a): Middelfart Sparekasse – Arkitekturen og arbejdspladsen. Copenhagen: 3XN Architects. 3XN (2010b): Mind Your Behaviour – How Architecture Shapes Behaviour. Copenhagen: 3XN Architects. 3XN & Cainer, M. (2007): Investigate Ask Tell Draw Build. London: Black Dog Publishing. Ackroyd, S. & Hughes, J. A. (1992, 2nd eds.): Data Collection in Context. Essex: Longman Group. Ahnfeld-Mollerup, M. & Rostrup, N. (2011, eds.): Percipio. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation. Altman, I. & Stokols, D. (1999): Series Foreword, in: Nasar, J. L.: Design by Competition: Making Design Competition Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appelton, J. (1975): The Experience of Landscape. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Augustin, S. & Coleman, C. (2012): The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Axel, E. (2009): Situeret projektering I et byggeprojekt. Nordiske Udkast, 37, p. 97-118. Axel, E. (2008): A Building Connecting Separated Communities. Proceedings of Ecologies of Diversities. San Diego, USA. Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D. & McIndoe, G. (1996): Building Evaluation Techniques. Wellington: McGraw-Hill. Barker, R. G. (1968): Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods of Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Barker, R. G. & White, H. F. (1949): Psychological ecology and the problem of psycho-social development. Child Development, 20, 131-143. Baron, R. M. (2007): Situating Coordination and Cooperation between Ecological and Social Psychology. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 179-199. Bechtel, R. B. & Churchman, A. (eds.) (2002): Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Becker, F. (2004): Offices at work: Uncommon workspace strategies that add value and improve performance. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Bille, M. (2017, in press): Ecstatic things: The power of light in shaping Bedouin homes. Home Cultures, 14(1). Bille, M. & Sørensen, T. F. (2016, eds.): Elements of architecture: Assembling archaeology, atmosphere and the performance of building spaces. London: Routhledge.

241

Bodin, C. B. & Bodin, L. (2009): Differences in Satisfaction with Office Environment among Employees in Different Office-types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), 241-257). Bonnes, M. & Bonaiuto, M. (2002): Environmental Psychology: From SpatialPhysical Environment to Sustainable Development. In Bechtel, R. B. & Churchman, A. (eds.) (2002): Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995): Environmental Psychology – A Psycho-social Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. (2005): phase 5: Occupancy – post-occupancy evaluation. In Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, J. C. (eds.) (2005): Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier. Bort, J. (2013): An Interesting Way To Force Employees To Mingle: Make Them Take The Stairs. Business Insider. Downloaded on August 7th 2014 from: http://www. Businessinsider.com/companies-use-stairs-to-mingle-2013-8 Boutelle, K., Jeffery, R., Murray, D., & Schmidz, K. (2001): Using signs, artwork and music to promote stair use in public building. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12). Brager, G., Heerwagen, J., Buaman, F., Huizenga, C., Powell, K., Ruland, A. & Ring, E. (2000): Team Spaces and Collaboration: Links to the Physical Environment. Internal report, CBE. Brown, D. C. & Blessing, L (2005): The relationship between function and affordance. ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Longview, CA. Brunelli, L. (2014): Older People’s Well-being Affordances at the Local Town High Street: A Study of Local Town Centres in Edinburgh. EDRA 46 conference proceedings, Los Angelses, May 2014. Burger, J.M. & Shelton, M. (2011): Changing everyday health behaviors through descriptive norm manipulations. Social Influence, 1-9, iFirst. Cairns, G. M. (1996): User input to design: confirming the ‘User-Needs Gap’ model. Environments by Design 1(2), 125-140. Canter, D. (1986): Putting Situations in Their Place: Foundations for a Bridge between Social and Environmental Psychology. In Furnham, A. (1986): Social Behaviour in Context. London: Allyn and Bacon. Cassidy, T. (1997): Environmental Psychology – Behaviour and Experience in Context. England: Psychology Press. Cesari, P., Formenti, F. and Olivato, P. (2003): A common perceptual parameter for stair climbing for children, young and old adults. Human Movement Science, 22, 111-124. Chemero, A. (2003): An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195. Christensen, P. H. (2009): Rumforskning – Fysiske omgivelser i ledelse og organisering af arbejde. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag. Clark, C. & Uzzell, D. L. (2002): The Affordances of the Home, Neighbourhood, School and Town Centre for Adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 95-108.

242

Cohen, A. (2010): Fitness Center’s Grand Staircase Leads to Top of Social Ladder. Athletic Business. Downloaded on August 7th 2014 from: http://www.athleticbusiness.com/fitness-center-s-grand-staircase- leadsto-top-of-social-ladder.html Coles, R. V. (2013): High School Design: State-of-the-Art Meets Innovation. Downloaded on August 7th 2014 from http://www.prweb.com/releases/ TahoeArtsDesignAcademy/e3CivicHigh/prweb10524600.htm Costall, A. (1995): Socializing Affordances. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 467-481. Costall, A. (1999): An iconoclast’s triptych: Edward Reed’s ecological philosophy. Theory & Psychology, 9, 411-416. Costall, A. & Leudar, I. (1996): Truth in the Situation. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 101-110. Costall, A. & Richards, A. (2013): Canonical Affordances: the Psychology of Everyday Things. In Paul Graves-Brown, Rodney Harrison & Angela Piccini (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. Oup Oxford. 82. Dixon, J. & Durrheim, K. (2000): Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39. Dreier, O. (2008): Psychotherapy in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, New York. Dreier, O. (1999): Læring som ændring af personlig deltagelse. I: Nielsen, K. & Kvale, S. (eds.): Mesterlære – læring som social praksis. Hans Reitzels Forlag, København. Dye, A. & Samuel, F. (2015): Demystifying Architectural Research: Adding value to your practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: RIBA Publishing. Fayard, A. & Weeks, J. (2007): Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The Affordances of Informal Interaction. Organization Studies, 28(05), 605-634. Festinger, L. A., Schachter, S. & Back, K (1950): Social Pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper & Row. Fischer, G. N., Tarquinio, C. & Vischer, J. C. (2004): Effects of the self-schema on perception of space at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, s. 131-140. Frandsen, A. K., Ryhl, C., Folmer, M. B., Fich, L. B., Øien, T. B., Sørensen, N. L., & Mullins, M. (2009): Helende arkitektur. Institut for Arkitektur og Design Skriftserie nr. 29. Aalborg: Aalborg University. Friedman, D. S. (2015): Reflections on Part V. In Preiser, W, F. E., Davis, A. T., Salama, A. M. & Hardy, A. (2015): Architecture beyond Criticism – Expert judgement and performance evaluation. New York: Routledge. Galvao, A. B. & Sato, K. (2005): Affordances in product architecture: Linking technical functions and user requirements. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Long Beach, CA. Galvao, A. B. & Sato, K. (2006): Incorporating affordances into product architecture: Methodology and case study. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Philadelphia, PA. Gaver, W. W. (1996): Affordances for Interaction: The Social is Material for Design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111-129. 243

Geertz, C. (1973): The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Gehl, J. (2010): Cities for People. Washington: Island Press. Gehl, J. (1979/2011, Eng. version): Life between the Buildings – Using Public Space. Washington: Island Press. Gibson, J. J. (1966): The senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, J. J. (1986): The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Gibson, J. J. (1966): The senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gifford, R. (ed.) (2016): Research Methods for Environmental Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Gifford, R. (2014): Environmental Psychology Matters. Annual Review of Psychology 65, 541-579. Gilbert, M. (2005): Corporate misbehavior and collective values. Brooklyn Law Review, 70(4), 1367-1380. Gilbert, M. (1996): Living together: Rationality, sociality and obligation. Landham: Rowman and Littlefield. Goodwin, C. (2000): Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522. Grangaard, S. (2008): Med mennesket I rammen – dialogorienteret registrering af rum og aktivitet i kontormiljøer. PhD Dissertation. Copehagen: Danish Centre for Design Research, Royal Danish Academy of Architecture, Design and Conservation. Greeno, J. G. (1994): Gibson’s Affordances. Psychological Review: Special Issue: The Centennial Issue of the Psychological Review, 101(2), 336-342. American Psychological Association. Groat, L. N. & Wang, D. (2013): Architectural Research Methods, 2nd Ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Hamilton, K. D. & Watkins, D. H. (2009): Evidence-based Design for Multiple Building Types. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Heerwagen, J. H. & Wise, J. A. (1998): Green building benefits: in perceptions and experiences across manufacturing shifts. Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning, 70 (2), 57-63. Heerwagen, J. H. & Zagreus, L. (2005): The Human factors of Sustainable Building Design: Post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center (Summary No. SR_CBF_2005). Berkeley: University of California Press. Heerwagen, J., H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K., & Loftness, V. (2004): Collaborative Knowledge Work Environments. Building Research and Information, 32(6), 510-528. Heft, H. (2012): The foundations of ecological psychology. In Clayton, S.: The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, p. 1-40. New York: Oxford. Heft, H. (2007): The Social Constitution of Perceiver-Environment Reciprocity. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 85-105. 244

Heft, H. (2001): Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James’s Radical Empiricism. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heft, H. (1989): Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 1-30. Heft, H. (1988): Affordances of children’s environment’s: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29-37. Hodges, B. H. & Baron, R. M. (2007): On Making Social Psychology More Ecological and Ecological Psychology More Social. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 79-84. Hodulak, M. (2012): Programming Spaces for Innovation. In Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. & Watson, C. (2012): Enhancing Building Performance. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Houthoofd, D. (2015): The social stair environment. Downloaded on August 5th 2015 from: http://archinect.com/people/project/6886225/the-socialstair-environment/6891042 Hua, Y., Loftness, V., Heerwagen, J. H. & Powell, K. M. (2011): Relationship Between Workplace Spatial Settings and Occupant-Perceived Support for Collaboration. Environment and Behavior 34(6), 807-826. Ingold, T. (2000): The Perception of the Environment: essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Psychology Press. Jacobsen, P. H. (2014): Situeret læring i designprojekter – Et etnografisk studie af en proceskonkurrence på Carlsberg. Ph.d. Dissertation. Roskilde: Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University. Joerges, B. (1988): Technology in Everyday Life: Conceptual Queries. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 18, 221-237. Jones, K. S. (2003): What Is an Affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107-114. Kabo, F., Hwang, Y., Levenstein, M. & Owen-Smith, J. (2015): Shared Paths to the Lab: A Sociospatial Network Analysis of Collaboration. Environment and Behavior 47(1), 57-84. Kato, A., Le Roux, P. C. & Tsunekawa, K. (2005): Building performance evaluation in Japan. In Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, J. C. (eds.) (2005): Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier. Keller, C. M. & Keller, J. D. (1996): Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerr, J., Eves, F. & Carrol, D. (2001): Encouraging stair use: Stair-riser banners are better than posters. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8). Kim, Y. S. et al. (2007): Affordances in interior design: A case study in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interaction. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas, NV. Kim, Y. S. et al. (2008): Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception: The user activity case study in a building lobby. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, New York, NY.

245

Kirkeby, I. M. (2011): Transferable knowledge: an interview with Bent Flyvbjerg. Arc – architectural research quarterly, 15(1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkeby, I. M. (2009): Knowledge in the making. arc – architectural research quarterly, 13(3-4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knoblauch, H. (2005): Focused Ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (3). Koutamanis, A. (2006): Buildings and Affordances. In Gero, J. S. (ed.): Design Computing and Cognition. Netherlands: Springer. Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E. & Siegel, J. (2002): Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In Hinds, P & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (p. 137-162). Cambridge: MIT Press. Kyttä, M. (2004): The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179-198. Kyttä, M. (2002a): Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 109-123. Kyttä, M (2002b): Children’s independent mobility and the actualization of affordances: An intriguing relationship. Proceeding of the Conference of the International Association of Person-Environment Studies, Coruna, Spain. Kyttä, M., Kaaja, M. & Horelli, L. (2004): An Internet-Based Design Game as a Mediator of Children’s Environmental Visions. Environment and Behavior, 36, 127-151. Lansdale, M., Parkin, J., Austin, S. & Baguley, T. (2011): Designing for interaction in research environments: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31, 407-420. Larsen. K. (Red.) (2005): Arkitektur, krop og læring – En antologi om rum og artefakters betydning for handling og læring. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Lawson, B. (2005. 4th ed.): How Designers Think: The design process demystified. New York: Architectural Press. Leather, P., Beale, D. & Sullivan, L. (2003): Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, s. 213-222. Lee, K. K., Perry, A.S., Wolf, S.A., Agarwal, R., Rosenblum, R., Fisher, S., Grimshaw, V. E., Wener, R.E. & Silver, L.D. (2012): Promoting Routine Stair Use. Evaluating the Impact of a Stair Promt Across Buildings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(2): 136-141. Lee, Y. & Brand (2005): Effects of control over office workspace on perception of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, s. 323-333. Loveland, K. A. (1991): Social Affordances and Interaction II: Autism and the Affordances of the human Environment. Ecological Psychology, 3(2), 99-119.

246

Lutyens, D. (2014): Architecture in Ascendance: Innovative staircase design. In Architonic: The independent resource for architecture and design. Downloaded on August 7th 2014 from: http://www.architonic.com/ntsht/ architecture-in-ascendance-innovative-staircase-design/7000816#top Maher, A. & von Hippel, C. (2005): Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 219-229. Maier, J. R. A. (2005): Foundations of affordance based design. Ph.D. dissertation. Clemson: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University. Maier J. R. A., et al. (2007): The affordance structure matrix â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a concept exploration and attention directing tool for affordance based design. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas, NV. Maier J. R. A. & Fadel, G. M. (2003): Affordance-based methods for design. Proceedings of ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL. Maier J. R. A., Fadel, G. M. & Battisto, D. G. (2009): An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies, 30, 393-414. Mallory-Hill, S. & Westlund, A. (2012): Evaluating the Impact of Green Building on Worker Productivity and Health: A Literature Review. In Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. & Watson, C. (2012): Enhancing Building Performance. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. & Watson, C. (2012): Enhancing Building Performance. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Marsh, K. L., Johnson, L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009): Toward a radically embodied, embedded social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1217-1225. Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., & Schmidt, R. C. (2006): Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psychology, 18, 1-37. McArthur, L. Z. & Baron, R. M. (1983): Toward and ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238. McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000): Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphic Interface, 1-8. Mikellides, B. (2007): Architectural Psychology 1969-2007. Brooks eJournal of Learning and Teaching â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Promoting Good Practice in Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Higher Education, 2(2). Muecke, M. A. (1994): On the Evaluation of Ethnographies. In Jane M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Nasar, J. L., Preiser, W. F. E., & Fisher, T. (2007): Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture. USA: Fairchild Publications. Nieuw-Amerongen, van M. E., Kremer, S. P. J., de Vries, N. K. & Kok, G. (2011): The Use of Prompts, Increased Accessibility, Visibility, and Aesthetics of the Stairwell to Promote Stair Use in a University Building. Environment & Behavior, 43(1), 131-139. Norman, D. A. (1988): The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (1993): Things that make us smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley. 247

Nørager, R. (2009a): Low level cognition in user interfaces. PhD Dissertation. Aarhus: Department of Psychology, Aarhus University. Nørager, R. (2009b): Why evolutionary and developmental cognitive psychology?: The importance of non-human primates & human infants for understanding adult use of computerized technologies. In Høgh-Olesen et al. (eds.) Human characteristics: Evolutionary perspectives on human mind and kind. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press. Olander, E. K. & Eves, F. F. (2011): Elevator availability and its impact on stair use in a workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 200-206. O’Toole, K. M. (2001): Learning through the Physical Environment in the Workplace. International Education Journal, 2(1), 10-19. Outram, C. (2013): Why I Left the Architecture Profession. ArchDaily. Downloaded Oct., 2013. http://www.archdaily.com/440358 Pasternack, A. (2009): 41 Cooper Square: Thom Mayne’s Brazen Stair-Obsessed Marvel. Downloaded on September 30th from: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/41-coopersquare-thom-maynes-brazen-stair-obsessed-marvel.html Pedersen, S. (2014): The Ought to be, How to be, or Not to be – A Study of Standards and Subjectification Processes in High School. Ph.D. Dissertation. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Department of Psychology. Pedersen, Klitmøller & Nielsen (2012): Deltagerobservation – En metode til undersøgelse af psykologiske fænomener. Copenhagen: Hans Reizels Forlag. Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Bajaj, R., Bromberg, J., Congdon, C., Rashid, M., Warmels, S., Zhang, Y. & Zimring, C. (2007): Designing Space to Support Knowledge Work. Environment & Behavior, 39(6), 815-840. Peters, T. (2013): Architecture beyond Building. In, 3XN: 3XN architects. Seoul: Archilife. Pol, E. (1993): Environmental Psychology in Europe – From Architectural Psychology to Green Psychology. England: Avebury. Popov, L. (2016): Emerging Applied Ethnographic Methodologies. In EDRA Conference Proceedings. EDRA47. Raleigh, NC. Preiser, W, F. E., Davis, A. T., Salama, A. M. & Hardy, A. (2015): Architecture beyond Criticism – Expert judgement and performance evaluation. New York: Routledge. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z. & White, E. T. (1988): Post Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold. (New ed. 2015) Preiser, W. F. E. & Schramm, U. (2012): A Process Model for Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). In Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. & Watson, C. (2012): Enhancing Building Performance. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Preiser, W. F. E. & Schramm, U. (1997): Building performance evaluation. In J. DeChiara, J. Panero, & M. Zelnik (Eds.), Time-saver standards (7 ed., p. 233-238). New York: McGraw-Hill. Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, J. C. (eds.) (2005): Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier. (New ed. 2015) Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H. & Rivlin, L. G. (1970): Environmental Psychology: Man and his Physical Setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 248

Pyke, C., McMahorn, S. & Dietsche, T. (2010): Green Building & Human Experience: Testing green building strategies with volunteered geographic information. Washington D. C.: USGBC. Rashid, M. & Zimring, C. (2008): A Review of the Empirical Literature on the Relationships Between Indoor Environment and Stress in Health Care and Office Settings – Problems and Prospects of Sharing Evidence. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151-190. Reed, E. S. (1994): The affordances of the animate environment: social science from the ecological point of view. In: Ingold, T. (Ed.) (1994): What is an Animal? London, Routledge. Reed, E. S. (1996): Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., & Baron, R. M. (2007): Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 845-859. Rietveld, E., De Haan, S., & Denys, D. (2013): Social Affordances in Context: What are We Bodily Responsive To? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4). Rietveld, E. & Kiverstein, J. (2014): A Rich landscape of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26, 325-352. Roessler, K. K. (2003): Arkitekturpsykologi – idrætsrum som med- og modspiller. Copenhagen: Lokale- og Anlægsfonden. Saegert, S. (2004): Book review: Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 259-263. Schön, D. A. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. USA: Basic Books. Scott, M. M. (2005): A Powerful Theory and a Paradox: Ecological Psychologists After Barker. Environment & Behavior, 37, 295-329. Silva, P., Garganta, J., Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Agular, P. (2013): Shared knowledge or shared affordances? Insights from an ecological dynamics approach to team coordination in sports. Sports Medicine, 34, 765.772. Skjaeveland, O. & Garling, T. (1997): Effects of Interactional Space on Neighbouring. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 181-198. Sommer, R. & Sommer, B. (2002, 5th ed.): A practical guide to behavioral research: tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press. Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989): Institutional Ecology, ‘Translation’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3). Stedman, R. C. (2002): Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitudes and Identity. Environment and Behavior, 34. Steg, L., Van Den Berg, A. E. & De Groot, J. I. M. (eds.) (2013): Environmental Psychology – An Introduction. West Sussex: The British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons. Still, J. D. (2013): Cognitively describing and designing affordances. Design Studies, 34, 285-301. Stoffregen, T. A. (2004): Breath and Limits of the Affordance Concept. Ecological Psychology, 16(1), 79- 85. 249

Stoffregen, T. A. (2000): Affordances and Events. Ecological Psychology, 12, 1-28. Stokols, D. & Altman, I. (1987): Handbook of Environmental Psychology. York: Wiley. Suchman, L. A. (2007): Human-Machine Configurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition. New York NY: Cambridge University Press. Suchman, L. A. (2001): Building Bridges: Practice-based Ethnographies of Contemporary Technology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.): Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. New Mexico: Amerind Foundation Suchman, L. A. (1993): Response to Vera and Simon’s Situated Action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 71-75. Suchman, L. A. (1987): Plans and situated actions: The problem of humanmachine communications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sylvest, M. (Forthcoming 2017): Social Interactions in Work Environments: Expanding Building Evaluation. In: Building Performance Evaluation: From Delivery Process to Life Cycle Phases. Springer. Sylvest, M. (2012): Arkitekturpsykologien og det Moderne Storrumskontor – et Speciale om Videndeling og Medarbejdertilfredshed I Moderne Kontorbygninger. Master Thesis. Roskilde: Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University. Szigeti, F. & Davis, G. (1997): Functional programming and evaluation – From theory to practice: 1965 to 1997 – Thirty-two years of professional practice at “bridging the gap”. In Amiel, M. S. & Vicher, J. C. (eds.): Space design and management for place making. EDRA 28 Proceedings. Montreal: Environmental Design Research Association. Thomsen, J. D., Sønderstrup-Andersen, H. K. H. & Müller, R. (2011): Peopleplant Relationships in an Office Workplace: Perceived Benefits for the Workplace and Employees. HortScience 46(5), s. 744-752. Till, J. (2009): Architecture Depends. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Tweed, C. (2001): Highlighting the affordances of designs. In de Vries, B., van Leeuwen, J. & Achten, H. (eds.): Computer aided architectural design futures 2001. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Turvey, M. (1992): Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173-187. Uzzell, D. & Räthzel, N. (2009): Transforming environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 340-350. Valenti, S. S. & Good, J. M. M. (1991): Social Affordances and Interaction I: Introduction. Ecological Psychology, 3(2), 77-98. Valenti, S. S. (1989): Ecological Social Psychology: Illustrative Experiments on the Perception of Intention and Intercoordination in Human Social Walking. Perceiving and Acting Workshop Review, 4(1), 28-32. Van Acker, R. & Valenti, S. S. (1989): Perception of Social Affordances by Children with Mild Handicapping Conditions: Implications for Social Skills Research and Training. Ecological Psychology, 1(4), 383-405. Vischer, J. C. (1989): Environmental Quality in Offices. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Vischer, J. C. (1996): Workspace Strategies: Environment As A Tool For Work. Chapman & Hall.

250

Vischer, J. C. (2001): Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Multi-facetted Tool For Building Improvement. In Learning from our Buildings: A State-of-thePractice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (Federal Facilities Council). National Academy Press. Walden, R. (ed.) (2009): Schools for the Future â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Design Proposals from Architectural Psychology. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Walden, R. (2005): Assessing the performance of offices of the future. In Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, J. C. (Eds.) (2005): Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier. Wall, S. (2015): Focused Ethnography: A Methodological Adaptation for Social Research in Emerging Contexts. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16 (1). Warren, W.H. (1984): Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683-703. Warren, W. H. & Whang, S. (1987): Visual guidance for walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(3), 371-383. Watson, C. (2012): Patterns in Post-Occupancy Evaluation. In Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. & Watson, C. (2012): Enhancing Building Performance. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Wener, R. E. (2012): The Environmental Psychology of Prisons and Jails: Creating Humane Spaces in Secure Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wener, R. E. (2008): History and Trends in Environmental Design Research (EDR). Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 25(4), 282-297. Wenger, E. (1998): Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wicker, A. W. (2002): Ecological Psychology: Historical Contexts, Current Conception, Prospective Directions. In: Bechtel, R. B. & Churchman, A. (eds.) (2002): Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Windsor, A. (2005): User satisfaction surveys in Israel. In Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, J. C. (Eds.): Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier. Wolcott, H. F. (1999) Ethnography: A Way of seeing. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Yildirim, K., Akalin-Baskaya, A. & Celebi, M. (2007): The effects of window proximity, partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, s. 154-165. Zeisel, J. (2006): Inquiry by Design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Environment / Behavior / Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

251

Mille Sylvest

Situated Social Aspects of Everyday Life in the Built Environment.

Social Psychology of Everyday Life — Informing the Design Process by Expanding Theory and Evaluation Methods Related to Social Interactions in Designed Physical Settings 1st Revised Edition 2017 © Mille Sylvest, 2016 Design & Art Direction by Hans Munk and Emilie Guldberg Jensen. Published by GXN Innovation in collaboration with 3XN Architects. The publication is sponsored by Realdania. Printed in Denmark by KLS Pure Print. This book is Cradle to Cradle® Silver Certified™

No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

3XN Architects KanonbĂĽdsvej 8 1437 Copenhagen K Denmark

This research publication is a contribution to crossdisciplinary research regarding the mutuality between humans and our socio-physical environment. From within a framework of environmental and ecological psychology, it advocates for a situated approach to the study of social aspects of everyday life in the built environment. The main focus is the relationship between architectural design and the possibilities it creates for social interactions among users, or what is known as affordances for sociality. This book stands out as an important piece of research with significant academic and methodological contributions as well as recommendations that advances the practice of architectural design with a human and social perspective.

256