Rmd by Austen Scott

RESEARCH AUSTEN SCOTT

13089554

METHODS

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY FOR DESIGN

P3OO26

DIARY 6 DECEMBER 2013

RESEARCH

POSITION

ABSTRACT

I want to research the intangible. The unnoticeable. The unperceivable. The untouchable. The un-seeable. The unquestionable. The unanswerable. The un-apparent nature of meaningful human actions and reactions within the subconscious world in where these things occur.

“It is not about adhearing to any one correct approach or set of right techniques, it is miaginative, artfull, flexible and reflective.” (Coffery + Atkinson, 1996, p10)

E S S AY A Critical

Reflection

Once my research position was formalised I was able to subsequently approach the design problem and ascertain as to what methodological decisions would be suitable to the solutions I had set out to find. I chose to primarily focus my methodology on research of a qualitative nature throughout my work. My qualitative analysis of architecture therefore involved different types of inductive methodologies. Through this “bottom - up” approach (C, Crouch & J, Pearce, 2012) I could proficiently bring to light the unseen, the intangible, unnoticeable and inaccessible phenomena. In addition I intended to explore both the physical and metaphysical aspects of other peoples habitus through means of a “creative and iterative process” (Patton, 2002).

Upon conducting the various research philosophies demonstrated throughout this work I found myself confronting numerous challenges each unique to the individual tasks demonstrated throughout. The most challenging and fundamental of these was the development of a successful association between an authentic research position and myself. I felt that the research position had to suit not only the realisation of satisfactory results with reference to contemporary issues but also suit my personal agenda and interests within the field of architectural design. M. Walter notes in “Social Research Methods” (2010) “Our research position, knowingly or unknowingly underpins all our research.” This furthermore highlighted the necessity for a formalised understanding of my position. The position would also have to factor against a bias to unforeseen ideological assumptions that could take form when reflecting on my habitus and my more immediate life world experiences.

My methodology would reside as the overlying question throughout the research, however each exercise has its own investigative inquiry into specific areas within the greater context of my research position. The individual exercises established a basis to analyse the subject in closer detail and create a “depth of knowledge as opposed to breadth” as I was not interested in the larger generalised perspectives of the every day. (C, Crouch & J, Pearce, 2012) In doing so I was able to focus on gaining an outlook in explicit detail of the individual’s experiences, thoughts and memories and begin to show their appearance through design research.

It was important for me to make a conscious effort to align myself with a highly liberal perspective when handling source information or research data. Not only did I want to treat the data as what it is intended to represent but to also minimise my personal beliefs with respect to any analysis that I undertook. I also wanted to avoid falling into unforeseeable semiotic misconceptions that could cause inaccuracies throughout my data collecting. However I must concede that despite delicately handling data within my design research it is never entirely free of subjective interpretation. When analysing the various parameters of research such as events, objects, or people I only gain a restricted perspective, a limited viewpoint to account for my data as I have an incomplete understanding of the intangible parameters that surround me. (C, Crouch & J, Pearce, 2012)

Within the research projects I wanted to expand on the notion of qualitative data by exploring lesser-used techniques. I chose to challenge Crouch & Pearce’s comments, which mention that qualitative data is usually represented in the form of words as opposed to imagery, and create projects that address this. Examples of this can be found in methods such as Exploring Mood and Light through digital collage and Night Alleys (walking architecture). These show the ability to communicate the concept by using imagery and drawing as the primary methodological tool of representation. Nevertheless, other projects such as the game of spatial memories were best suited to a more traditional method of written narrative.

It is within these discrepancies that my research method began to gain focus. By adopting an interpretive research lens I was able to “focus on human action and assumes that all human action is meaningful and has to be interpreted and understood“ (Usher, Bryant & Johnston, 1997) For me, the impassable hermeneutical horizons were not formalities that I had to content with but the very reason for doing research; to gain an understanding into why they are apparent and how one can go about conducting answers to the various question that surrounds this subject.

Another important aspect addressed throughout the work was the use of multidisciplinary techniques. Through the use of both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research methods I was able to extend my research abilities beyond an architectural context and focus more on the personal engagement with spatial landscapes. This “diagonal axis” as called by Julia Kristeva (1997), 28

can allow me to question the conventional nature of things and perform an

big questions, regardless of how “wicked” the problem is throughout

Rendell, 2004). Rendell’s work on multidisciplinary design was of influence

& J, Pearce, 2012, p33) One must begin to look beyond the material

enquiry into the methodologies and terminologies within research (Jane

the nature of design in research. (Bonsiepe, 2006, as cited in C, Crouch

to various methods within my work but I questioned the necessity to

world to ascertain the individual perception through the phenomena

use multidisciplinary research to such an extensive measure as Rendell

of experiences. When reflecting on these statements and the research

proposes. By adopting these methods in differing way and only when

that I have composed throughout this series of works I notice how it has

necessary the method suits the research problem, which in turn derives

changed my outlook on what research means not only to my methods of

from the research position. Taking “Researching Mood and Light through

designing but also my role within the larger system that is architectural

Digital Collage” as example we can see that it is a purely disciplinary

design.

exercise in measuring and assessing the qualitative nature of light in a

given space. However Stasis and Motion shows signs of interdisciplinary

research by way of looking at the discipline of architecture through film. The game of spatial memories also derives from an interdisciplinary

agenda by relying on various parameters outside of design such as creative writing and philosophical influences that contribute to an interdisciplinary narrative based design that works towards building a house.

A Game of Spatial Memories was also an opportunity to focus on

a collaborative or co-designing method that involves the eventual beneficiaries of the collected data. Through a playful and participatory

method, which allows the field study to inform the design, I was able to

question the “correct descriptions of practice” and allow the intended

users to dictate the types of data received by the researchers. (Johansson, 2005) I found the unique nature of this method to be incredibly advantageous to my research position as it relinquished my control over

the project. Furthermore, it created a research outline that evolved and developed as the game was being played and certainty long after it had finished.

A vital component that I found difficulty in implementing throughout my work was the method of ‘triangulation’. Lather & Creswell’s work focuses heavy on triangulation by looking at data from varying perspectives to

ensure a corroborated conclusion on the questions being asked. The difficulty of implementing this within my work becomes apparent when

considering the scale and duration of the project, both of which I have found too small to create a genuinely triangulated thesis to conclude upon. However the benefit of selecting a strong research position begins to correct this issue by acting as a conglomerated approach to my

research. This in turn gives me the opportunity to take almost all aspects of my work into account when asking about the overriding question. This

becomes, in a sense, a reverse qualitative review of my work, taking into account a greater perspective from the individual details throughout each research method.

The specific foci that I chose to explore were driven from a mind set

that something more could be done, that, with respect to my research position the current or past research explorations required extending the

boundaries and like the designer Gui Bonsiepe; to be unafraid to frame 29

LECTURE NOTES Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6 - Lecture Cancled Week 7 - Not Present Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bachelard, G. (1994). The Poetics of Space (2nd. ed). Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. Bonisepi, G. (2006) Design and Democracy. Design issues. 22(2). Crouch, C., & Pearce, J. (2012) Doing Research in Design. London; Bloomsbury Publishing. Creswell, J. (2008). Qualitative Inquiery and Research Design. California: Sage Publications. Edwards, S., & Charley J. (2011). Writing the Modern City. New York: Routledge. Evans, R. (1997). “The Developed Surface: An Enquiry into the Brief Life of an Eighteenth-Century Drawing Technique” in Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. Architectural Association Publications. Houben, F. (2003). Mobility: A Room With A View. (Online). Avalable at: http://iabr.nl/en/editie/1e-iabr Johansson, M. (2005). Playful Collaborative Exploration: New Research Practice in Partisapatory Besign. Journal of Research Practice. Vol, 1. No, 1. Kahn, E. (2011). Focal Glow: The Structure of Light. (Online). Avalable at: http://www.archlighting.com/exhibitions/focal-glow.aspx Kamvasinoou. K. Journal of landscape architecture: autumn 2006 Reclaiming the Obsolete in Traditional landscapes: Perception, Motion, Engagement. Accessed 3rd December 2012. Kristeva, J. (1997). ‘Institutional Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice: an interview’, in Coles, A. & Defert, A. The Anxiety of Interdisciplinarity: Black Dog, London Lather, P. (1991) Getting Smart: Feminist research and pedagogy in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Designing and Conductiong Ethnographic Research. AltaMira Press Manoff, M. (2004). Theories of the Archive from Across the Disciplines in Libraries and the Acadmy. Vol 4, No 1. . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed). California: Sage Productions. Rendell, J. (2004). Architecture Research and diciplinarity in Research. Vol, 8. No 2. Sanders, n. & Stappers, P, J. (2008) Co-creation and the New Landscape of Design in CoDesign. Vol, 4. No, 1. Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Jonstone, R. (1997) Adult education and the post modern challenges: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routeledgs. Walter, M. (2010). Social Research Methods. (2nd ed). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Johansson, M. (2005). Playful Collaborative Exploration: New Research Practice in Partisapatory Besign. Journal of Research Practice. Vol, 1. No, 1. Zumthor, P. (1999). Thinking Architecture. Birkhauser Publishers