Vol2: A Critique of the Live Project by James Benedict Brown

A critique of the live project James Benedict Brown, BA (Hons) M.Arch Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Planning, Architecture & Civil Engineering Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University Belfast

Volume 2: Appendices

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Table of contents Appendix 1 Journal of Education in the Built Environment (JEBE) 1(1)- 6(1) literature search

Appendix 2 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) 53(1) - 63(1) literature search

Appendix 3 Respondent information sheet

Appendix 4 Respondent consent form

Appendix 5 Respondent profiles

Appendix 6 Respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; institution profiles

Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule

Appendix 8 Comparison of pilot and revised interview schedules

Appendix 9 Concepts

Appendix 10 Sample coded transcript 1

Appendix 11 Sample coded transcript 2

Appendix 12 Sample concept notebook pages

Appendix 13 Bibliography

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 1 Journal of Education in the Built Environment (JEBE) 1(1)- 6(1) literature search Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project? Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution? Q1 Does the paper describe an engagement of students of architecture with clients or end-users outside the academic institution? Keywords

Paper title

Paper authors

V(N)

live project

Tackling Six Common Dilemmas in ‘Live’ Planning Projects

Brand, Ralf; Rincón, Hugo

2(2)

Yes

live project

The Pedagogy of the Planning Studio: A View from Down Under

Higgins, Marilyn; Aitken-Rose, Elizabeth; Dixon, Jennifer

4(1)

Yes

live project

Fostering Deeper Engagement between Industry and Higher Education: Towards a Construction Knowledge Exchange Approach

Heesom, David; Olomolaiye, Paul; Felton, Anthony; Franklin; Richard; Oraifige, Amal

3(2)

Yes

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 2 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) 53(1) - 63(1) literature search Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project? Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution? Q1 Does the paper describe an engagement of students of architecture with clients or end-users outside the academic institution? Keywords

Paper title

Paper authors

V(N)

community

Public Participation: Technology and Democracy

Al-Kodmany, Kheir

53(4)

Yes

design-build

A Museum of Living Architecture

Alread, Jason; Leslie, Thomas

61(2)

design-build

Building Designs for Living: Studio 804 University of Kansas

Ascher-Barnstone, Deborah

55(3)

Yes

design-build

Navy Demonstration Project

Barnstone, Robert V.

60(2)

Yes

community

Figure/Fabric: Process/Production

Bertomen, Michele

54(4)

Yes

design-build

(Infra)Structural Landscapes: A Mail-Slot System

Better, Hansy; Cosmas, Michael; Piermarini, Anthony J.

55(3)

Yes

design-build

(Un)Intended Discoveries

Boza, Luis Eduardo

60(2)

Yes

design-build

Design in Movement: The Prospects of Interdisciplinary Design

Bronet, Frances; Schumacher, John

53(2)

community

For Want of Wind

Cavanagh, Ted; Kroeker, Richard; Mullin, Roger

58(4)

Yes

community, community design

Translations Between Design Research and Scholarship

Chi, Lily

61(1)

design-build

Translation and Materiality: The Space of Invention Between Designing and Building

Chun, Alice; Mcdonald, Timothy

55(3)

Yes

community

The Ideal of Community and Its Counterfeit Construction

Clarke, Paul Walker

58(3)

community

Insurgent Architecture: An Alternative Approach to DesignBuild

Corser, Robert; Gore, Nils

62(4)

Yes

community

Joint Maneuvers

Creimer, Matias

60(2)

Yes

design-build

No Compromise

Dunay, Robert; Wheeler, Joseph; Schubert, Robert

60(2)

Yes

community

Studio South

Erdman, Jori

59(4)

Yes

design-build

Designing / Building / Learning

Erdman, Jori; Weddle, Robert

55(3)

design-build

From Kaolin to Kevlar: Emerging Materials for Inventing New Architecture

Fernandez, John

58(1)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Yes No

No No

Yes Yes

Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown - jamesbenedictbrown@yahoo.co.uk Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project? Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution? Q1 Does the paper describe an engagement of students of architecture with clients or end-users outside the academic institution? Keywords

Paper title

Paper authors

V(N)

design-build

Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology

Guy, Simon; Farmer, Graham

54(3)

community

Location, Location, Location: Gender and the Archaeology of Urban Settlement

Haar, Sharon

55(3)

community

Design as Research

Hinson, David

61(1)

Yes

community

Community-Driven Place Making: The Social Practice of Participatory Design in the Making of Union Point Park

Hou, Jeffrey; Rios, Michael

57(1)

Yes

design-build, live project

Tectonic Gardens

Hughes, Michael

60(2)

Yes

design-build

Surface/Thickness Translated: Design-Build as Vehicle

Iwamoto, Lisa; Scott, Craig

54(3)

Yes

community, community design, designbuild

Philanthropic Architecture: Nongovernmental Development Projects in Latin America

Jann, Marga; Platt, Stephen

62(4)

Yes

design-build

The Reality of One-Which-Is-Two"Mosque Battles and Other Stories: Notes on Architecture

Kusno, Abidin

57(1)

design-build

Accelerated Fabrication: A Catalytic Agent within a Community of Caring

Lasala, Hector; Gjertson, W. Geoff

58(4)

Yes

design-build

Architectural Reenactments at 1:1 Scale

Mannell, Steven

60(2)

Yes

design-build

Extraordinary Performances at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Moe, Kiel

61(4)

design-build

Modeling the Void

Pelletier, Louise

62(2)

community

A Useful Practice

Perkes, David

62(4)

Yes

community, live project

Buildings Recycled-City Refurbished

Poon, Ben Ho-Sing

54(3)

design-build

Space of Criticism: Exhibitions and the Vernacular in Italian Modernism

Sabatino, Michelangelo

62(3)

community, community design, designbuild

Client-Situated Architectural Practice: Implications for Architectural Education

Schermer, Brian

55(1)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Paper title

Paper authors

V(N)

design-build

Hearing Architecture: Exploring and Designing the Aural Environment

Sheridan, Ted; Van Lengen, Karen

57(2)

design-build

Vessels of Expression and Flows of Innovation

Tombesi, Paolo; Martel, Andrew

59(2)

design build

The Sheer Opacity of Contemporary Enclosure

Veikos, Cathrine; Cheng, Renee

57(2)

design-build

Complementary Virtual Architecture and the Design Studio

Wake, Warren K.; Levine, Sally L.

56(2)

design-build

Small Built Works Project

Wales, Brad

60(2)

Yes

design-build

Why the Orders Belong in Studio

Westfall, Carroll William

61(4)

design-build

The Virtual Architecture of Silicon Valley

Wright, Gwendolyn

54(2)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 3 Respondent information sheet

Information Sheet

An investigation into the origins, motivations and roles of live projects in architectural education Chief investigator / supervisor:

Investigator / student:

Prof. Ruth Morrow School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering Queenʼs University Belfast David Keir Building Stranmillis Road Belfast BT9 5AG

James Benedict Brown School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering Queenʼs University, Belfast David Keir Building Stranmillis Road Belfast BT9 5AG

e. ruth.morrow@qub.ac.uk t. 028 9097 4512

e. jbrown55@qub.ac.uk t. 028 9097 5606

This research is part of a PhD thesis at the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPACE) at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB). This study will investigate the various conditions leading to the inception of live projects in schools of architecture in the UK and Ireland. It will place live projects against an investigation the broader issues and conditions affecting university-based architectural education. This is the first of two phases of data collection. Taking part in the research at this stage will involve an interview of approximately forty-five minutes, asking a range of questions relating to your experiences, perceptions and opinions on live projects in architectural education, and architectural education in general. Any information you choose to give during the course of this interview will be handled and stored in accordance with the ethical guidelines of SPACE and QUB. With your consent, the interview will be digitally recorded and transcribed. Your identity and the identity of your institution will be anonymised and identified to the researcher by a code. Audio and text files will be password-protected and kept on a password-protected computer. Handwritten notes will be kept in locked storage. The second phase of data collection - to which you will be invited but not obliged to participate - will, anonymise, collate and thematise the responses of the first phase to represent the both the individual voice and diversity of opinions. In a manner to be confirmed at a later date, you will be invited to read and comment upon this information. We look forward to disseminating the results through peer-reviewed publications and the thesis itself, which we believe will contribute to an under-theorised field of architectural education.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 4 Respondent consent form

Consent Form Thank you for your participation in this research. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Researchers at Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University Belfast endeavour to adhere to the highest standards, and as such all information gathered during the course of research will be treated with confidence and shall be governed by the Data Protection Act and the standards for ethical research agreed upon by SPACE and QUB. To ensure a high quality of research and to ensure the complete comfort of contributors, the following rules will apply to the interview: 1

By agreeing to take part in this research, the participant gives permission for the researcher to use the information generated by you solely for academic purposes; Ph.D. thesis, peerreviewed journals, conference papers and further research.

The anonymity of the interviewee will be protected by the researcher. Each participant and that of his/her organisation will be assigned a code in any publications. Any information divulged must not be used outside the forums stated without the explicit permission of the parties involved.

Participation is voluntary and the participant is free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason.

The interviewer will respect the intervieweeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to a point of view and must not use any means to restrict the interviewee from expressing that view.

To facilitate accuracy of reporting, the interview will be recorded.

The researcher should ensure that the participant fully understands these rules, and both should sign and date below. Investigator:

James Benedict Brown

Participant:!

_______________________

Signature:!

_______________________

Signature:!

_______________________

Date:! !

_______________________

Date:! !

_______________________

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 5 Respondent profiles Pete (BSc, BArch Hons) is a male BSc Director of Studies (full time) and Teaching Fellow at an English university. At the time of the interview, he had taught for a total of four years part time and six years full time, and has in excess of twenty five years of practice experience. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Jean (BA Hons, DipArch, PhD) is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At the time of the interview, she had taught for a total of four years part time and six years full time. She does not have a contractual research obligation, but has pro-actively negotiated time and resources to conduct published research within the school. Steve (BA Hons, PGDip, MArch, DipArch, PhD in progress) is a male Senior Associate Lecturer (part time, working in practice) at an English university. He is principally the Director of the school of architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project office, but also teaches. At the time of the interview, he had taught for a total of twelve years part time. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Neil (BSc, MArch) is a male Senior Lecturer at an English university. At the time of the interview, he had taught for a total of thirteen years and has in excess of twenty years of practice experience. He has both a contractual teaching and research commitment. Noel is the male Director (full time) of the design/build workshop of a private architecture school. At the time of the interview, he had taught part time for five years and full time for one year. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Paul is a male Senior Lecturer and School Leader in Research and Knowledge Exchange and an English university. He has both a contractual teaching and research commitment. Jen is the female Director (full time) of a projects office at an English university. At the time of the interview, she had taught for six years. She does not have a contractual research obligation. Fran is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) and BA (Hons) Architecture Course Leader at an English university. She has a small (<0.1FTE) contractual research obligation

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Reid (BA, DipArch Hons) is a male Principal Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At the time of the interview, he had taught part time for six years and full time for the last six years. Dean is a male Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At the time of the interview, he had taught part time for three years and full time for the last twelve years, and has in excess of thirty years of practice experience. He works across both the Architecture and Architectural Technology courses. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Sue (BA Hons, DipArch, PhD) is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. She is also the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Director of Outreach. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time for five years and full time for the last seven years. She has a contractual research obligation. Deb (BA Hons, DipArch) is a female Lecturer and Design Tutor (part time) at an English university. She has also been recently appointed to co-ordinate the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual live project programme. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time for seventeen years. She does not have a contractual research obligation, but researches for her own interest and practice. Lloyd is a male Lecturer (full time) at an Irish institute of technology. At the time of the interview, he had taught full time for fourteen years. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Fred is a male BSc Architecture Course Leader (full time) an an Irish institute of technology. At the time of the interview, he had taught full time for four and a half years. He does not have a contractual research obligation. Joan (BArch Hons, MBA) is a female Head of Department (full time) at an Irish institute of technology. At the time of the interview, she had taught full time for fifteen years. She does not have a contractual research obligation. Joyce (BA, MArch, PhD) is a female Lecturer and BSc Year Leader (full time) at a Northern Irish university. She has both a contractual teaching and research commitment.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Mark is a Senior Lecturer (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the interview, he had taught full time for fifteen years. He has previously had (but does not currently have) a contractual research obligation. Dan (PhD) is a male Head of School (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the interview, he had taught part time for one year and full time for the last seventeen years. He has both a contractual teaching and research commitment. Jill is a female M.Arch Leader (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time for eight years and full time for the last eight years. She does not have a contractual research commitment. Claire (BSc, PgDip, MSc) is a female Teaching Fellow (part time) at a Scottish university. She does not have a contractual research commitment. Roz (PhD in progress) is a female Lecturer (full time) at a Welsh university. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time for five years while in practice in the United States of America, and full time for the last five years in the UK. She has both a contractual teaching and research commitment.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 6 Respondents’ institution profiles All courses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland listed below are either validated to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Part I or Part II level, or hold candidate status for imminent validation. All courses at schools of architecture in the Republic of Ireland are recognised by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI). For consistency, the term “school of architecture” has been used throughout the thesis, regardless of whether the course sits within an institute, department or faculty. School A is a School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering at a university in Northern Ireland. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and a two year MArch. School B is a Department of Architecture within a Faculty of Engineering at a university in Scotland. It offers a four year BSc (Hons) and a one year PgDip / MArch. School C is a Department of Architecture and Spatial Design at a university in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) and a two year Diploma. It has a chartered projects office / practice within the school. School D is a School of Architecture and Visual Arts at a university in England. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and a two year Diploma. School E is a Department of Architecture within an Institute of Technology in Ireland. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and a two year BArch (Hons). School F is a School of Architecture within a College of Engineering and Built Environment within an Institute of Technology in Ireland. It offers a three year Honours Degree and a two year Higher Certificate in Design Studies. School G is a School of Architecture and the Built Environment at a university in Scotland. If offers a four year BSc (Hons) and a one year MArch. School H is a School of Architecture within a College of Art, Science & Engineering at a university in Scotland. It offers a three year BArch and a two year MArch. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

School I is a School of Environment and Development within a Faculty of Development and Society at a university in England. It offers a BSc (Hons) in Architecture and Environmental Design and a two year Diploma. At the time of the interview, the Diploma has candidate course status for RIBA Part II exemption. School J is a School of Architecture within a Faculty of Social Sciences at a university in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) in Architecture and a two year MArch. It has a non-chartered projects office / research consultancy within the school. School K is a School of Architecture at a university in Wales. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and a two year MArch (the first year of which is spent in practice). School L is a Department of Planning and Architecture within a School of the Built and Natural Environment at a university in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) in Architecture and Planning and a BEng in Architecture and Engineering, as well as a two year Bachelor of Architecture. School M is a Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering within a Faculty of Engineering and Design at a university in England. It offers a four year BSc (Hons) Architecture sandwich, with placements in years two and three, and a two year MArch, with the first semester spent in placement. School N is a School of Architecture and Design within a Faculty of Arts at a university in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) and a two year BArch. School O is a private architecture school in England. It offers a one year foundation, a three year bachelors-level course, a two year diploma and a sixteen month Masters. Degrees are conferred by the Open University. School P is a School of Architecture at a university in England. It offers a three BA (Hons) and a two year Diploma. It has a chartered projects office / practice within the school. School Q is a joint School of Architecture of two universities in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) and a two year BArch that are conferred by both institutions. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule Background information

No. 0.1

Question

Purpose

How many years have you been

Questions 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 were intended verify the

involved in architectural education?

background/biographical information gathered before the interviews (see appendix 5 for interview respondents’

0.2

Has that involvement primarily been at full or part time?

0.3

profiles). On occasion, 0.3 served as the first opportunity for the respondent to speak at length about their opinions and experiences of live projects.

Have you had any direct personal experience of live projects, either as a student or tutor?

Architectural education

No. 1.1

Question

Purpose

The five year programme of

The literature review found various positions relating to the

university-based architectural

“post-Schön” design studio in architectural education, namely

education, with additional practice

critiques of the structuralist pedagogies of Donald Schön by

experience, is now the established

Eraut (1994), Till (2005), Usher et al, (1997), Waks (2001),

structure in this country. Based on

Webster (2008) versus the endorsements of the “Schönian”

your experiences, are you satisfied

design studio, such as Cunningham (2005).

with the length, structure and shape architectural education in this country?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose

What advantages do you believe a

Question 1.2 sought to prompt and exploration of the link

university-based education has over its

between education and practice, for instance are we educating

predecessor, a completely practice-

primarily for practice? Concurrent with these research were a

based apprenticeship?

number of high profile public debates about the role of architectural education in the changing context of higher education, notably that surrounding the Pavilion of Protest (2011) exhibition at the RIBA.

1.3

Thinking first about your teaching,

Lonergan & Andersen write that “every pedagogical choice has

what are the greatest external

to take account of its restrictions, limitations and

pressures (over which you have no

constraints.” (1998, p. 72) Questions 1.3 and 1.4 sought to

control) which threaten to affect the

establish whether the respondents’ experiences of higher

quality of your work?

education mirror concerns regarding (for example) HE funding discussed in the literature, and which may in turn draw into question traditional educational practices. Issues affecting HE that have been discussed in the literature include: how, during a period of sustained growth in student numbers from the 1960s to the present day, HE participation has been disproportionately high amongst students from richer rather than poorer background Blanden & Machin, 2004); changing student attitudes towards learning and HE (Altbach, 2002); larger cohorts, such as that described by McGonnigle (2005); and the reduction of per capita resources for HE teaching (Bonnen, 1998; McGonnigle, 2005; Rooney, 2005). The close inter-relationship of the broader issues affecting HE and community-based and outreach activities is stated by Bonnen, who writes that “over the last century and a half, as society and its expectations of the university have changed, the university has evolved by adapting to society’s needs. The period since World War II has been one of unprecedented growth in the scale and scope of higher education. Despite an expected future expansion of the student-age cohort, university capacities are now constrained by limited and even declining real or inflation-adjusted resources. From these changes in society and the university, many of our current problems flow. It is in this changing context that the outreach role of the university is now evolving.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 37)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

funding discussed in the literature, and which may in turn Purpose draw into question traditional educational practices. Issues

Thinking now about your research,

affecting HE that have been discussed in the literature

what are the greatest external

include: how, during a period of sustained growth in student

pressures (over which you have no

numbers from the 1960s to the present day, HE participation

control) which threaten to affect the

has been disproportionately high amongst students from

quality of your work?

richer rather than poorer background Blanden & Machin, 2004); changing student attitudes towards learning and HE (Altbach, 2002); larger cohorts, such as that described by McGonnigle (2005); and the reduction of per capita resources for HE teaching (Bonnen, 1998; McGonnigle, 2005; Rooney, 2005). The close inter-relationship of the broader issues affecting HE and community-based and outreach activities is stated by Bonnen, who writes that “over the last century and a half, as society and its expectations of the university have changed, the university has evolved by adapting to society’s needs. The period since World War II has been one of unprecedented growth in the scale and scope of higher education. Despite an expected future expansion of the student-age cohort, university capacities are now constrained by limited and even declining real or inflation-adjusted resources. From these changes in society and the university, many of our current problems flow. It is in this changing context that the outreach role of the university is now evolving.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 37)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

The live project

No. 2.1

Question

Purpose

In the context of architectural

The literature reveals some divergence of opinion about what

education, how would you describe a

constitutes a live project, although variations exist around a

live project?

general theme: namely, a teaching project that brings university-based students of architecture into contact with one or more aspects of the reality of architectural practice: a real client, a real outcome; and/or a real budget. (Sara, 2006; Watt & Cottrell, 2006; Chiles & Holder, 2008)

2.2

Thinking about live projects in

Questions 2.2 and 2.3 are broadly similar to those asked by

architectural education, can you name

Toker (2007) in his survey of community design practitioners,

three schools or programmes, either in

and are asked in order to establish which particular live

this country or abroad, which you

projects or live project programmes are influential.

would regard as being influential?

2.3

How did you come to know about these projects?

2.4

Do live projects exist in disciplines

Questions 2.4 and 2.5 are to determine whether live projects

other than architecture?

are seen as unique to architecture or similar to other disciplines and pedagogies, and to determine whether the link

2.5

If live projects in other disciplines are not always called live projects, what else might they be known as?

between architectural education and architectural practice is perceived as being unique. The participation of students in actual patient care is, for instance, integral to the teaching of medicine (Jagsi & Lehmann, 2004).

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Live projects and their location / timing in the curriculum

No. 3.1

Question

Purpose

At which stage or level of a five year

Questions 3.1 and 3.2 are asked in order to establish whether

course in architecture do you think are

live projects and their engagement with the reality of practice

live projects most effective?

can bring too much complexity to the learning process. Writing with regard to medical education, Dornan & Bundy

3.2

What is the optimum length of time for a live project to run?

write that “without early experience, the curriculum was socially isolating and divorced from clinical practice. The abruptness of students’ transition to the clinical environment in year 3 generated positive and negative emotions. The rationale for early experience would be to ease the transition; orientate the curriculum towards the social context of practice; make students more confident to approach patients; motivate them; increase their awareness of themselves and others; strengthen, deepen, and contextualise their theoretical knowledge; teach intellectual skills; strengthen learning of behavioural and social sciences; and teach them about the role of health professionals.” (Dornan & Bundy, 2004, p. 834)

3.3

Does the preparation before a live

Considering Lonergan & Anderson’s (op cit) concern

project require more or less staff input

regarding the resourcing of live projects, questions 3.3, 3.4

than comparable studio-based

and 3.5 seek to prompt a discussion about how live projects are

projects?

resourced and what their requirements are. Bonnen emphasises that “the design of [outreach] organizational

3.4

Does the running of a live project require more or less staff input than comparable studio-based projects?

strategies is too dependent on the specific capacities and environment of the university, and on the nature of the problem and sector of society with which the university is collaborating in some problem-solving effort.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 63)

3.5

Does a live project cost more or less to run than comparable studio-based projects?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose

Do you regard live projects as

This research was conducted in an academic milieu preceding

primarily teaching or research

the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE)

activities?

2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment of research in all UK higher education institutions. This question seeks to investigate whether live projects may serve both teaching and research agendas. Additionally, Bonnen writes that “one of the clearest reasons why university outreach organizations fail is that they do not command enough knowledge of the problem addressed. It is a mistake to construct a university-outreach effort without linking it to or developing a relevant research base within the university.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 66)

3.7

In order to make room for the live

This question seeks to ask that if live projects were new to the

projects in your curriculum, what

curriculum, what did they replace? Are they considered an

other activities, courses or modules

improvement over what they replaced?

were changed, moved or replaced?

3.8

Was the live project programme

An expansion of the previous question.

developed as a response to any particular issue?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Live projects and their stakeholders

No.

Question

Purpose

4.1

From the point of view of the school as

Questions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 invited respondents to consider the

a whole, what are the pros and cons of

advantages and disadvantages of live project participation

including live projects in the

from the perspectives of the three major participant /

curriculum?

stakeholder figures.

4.2

From the point of view of the students, what are the pros and cons of including live projects in their curriculum?

4.3

From the point of view of the clients, what are the pros and cons being involved in a live project?

4.4

If students can choose between being

This question seeks to explore perceptions of student

involved in ‘live’ and ‘non-live’

motivations.

projects, what motivates them to be involved with live projects?

4.5

What motivates clients to be involved

There is little in the literature to suggest what motivates

with live projects?

clients to participate in live projects, and only anecdotal evidence found by the researcher that it is in order “to get something for nothing.” Brand & Rincón write that “we wanted to deliver a good product in the end. At its extreme, [ this concern ] can result in outright exploitation of cheap student labour, a danger discussed by Higgins and Simpson (1997) and Kent et al. (1997).” (Brand & Rincón, 2007, pp. 45-6) ...continues

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose In literature surrounding medical education there is a more sophisticated discussion of the ethical issues surrounding patient involvement in the education of future practitioners. The following quotes are indicative but also serve to emphasise the difference between the professions of medicine and architecture. “Altruism, rather than perceived benefit to self, seems to be the primary motivation for participation in medical education. Self interest may play a larger role in patients’ motivations for participating in research than in the case of education, and this difference has important implications.” (Jagsi & Lehmann, 2004, p. 333) “While there are undoubtedly parallels between patient involvement in medical education and in research, the differences between the two seem to me to be more profound than Jagsi and Lehmann suppose ... Where medical education is concerned, the differences in attitude between patients being treated by the NHS [in the UK] or Medicaid [in the USA] and those being treated privately seem to me to be entirely understandable. I am sure that it has chiefly to do with the non-paying patient’s sense of moral responsibility to “give something back,” as against the private patient’s perception that he or she has paid for a “private” appointment.” (Lapsley, 2004, p. 334)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose

How do you mediate between the

On the subject of mediating between students and clients,

expectations of the client(s) and the

Brand & Rincón write (with my emphasis) that “this is a

students?

question of prioritization: does the students’ learning experience matter more than the client's legitimate interests or vice versa? [ Professor Steven Moore, Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin ], the co-instructor of the third semester, referred to this problem as an ‘inherent allergy between teaching and creating a product.’” (Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 46) Is there such an “inherent allergy”?

4.7

4.8

Can you recall any live projects where

Questions 4.7 and 4.8 seeks to solicit specific examples to

this has been successful?

illustrate the issues raised in the preceding questions.

Can you recall any live projects where this has been difficult?

Before the live project

No. 5.1

5.2

Question How are potential live project clients

During the author’s own participation in a live project at the

identified?

University of Sheffield in 2006, it was found that the majority

Who is normally responsible for identifying potential live projects?

5.3

Purpose

For what reasons might a proposed live

of recent live projects were situated on sites and in communities within a short distance of the procuring tutor’s home.

What criteria are applied to the selection of live projects?

project not be taken forward?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose

Are public or private clients better

The author’s own experience of live projects (at the University

suited for live projects?

of Sheffield, 2006-8) provided widespread anecdotal evidence of a preference for public or third-sector (i.e. non-profit) clients at his own institution. Is this attitude common across other institutions?

5.5

Who is normally responsible for

The respondents have been chosen for the sample because of

designing the live project brief?

their roles as pedagogical decision makers. Therefore what processes (and what people) are involved in the creation of a live project? Kent et al write that “the objectives of any fieldwork exercise need to be clearly identified, since they condition the type of fieldwork and its success as an educational exercise.” (Kent et al., 1997, p. 319)

5.6

Should students and clients be part of

Continuing from question 5.5, this question seeks to explicitly

that process together?

frame the roles of the students and clients in the process of designing a live project. Are live projects collaborative at all stages? Kirby & Hollick write that pedagogues should “listen to the students. At postgraduate level they have important contributions to make. Do not, though, allow them to dictate the agenda. Change does not come from reinforcing existing positions.” (Kirby & Hollick, 2004, p. 3, cited in Brand & Rincón, 2007, pp. 56-7)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

After the live project

No. 6.1

Question How does a live project conclude?

Purpose Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live projects’ conclusions planned for, whether live projects are

6.2

Can a live project be extended beyond its planned conclusion?

evaluated and whether such evaluations are handled formally. Beamont lists questions raised through her research process into live projects at Sheffield, including the following under ‘Post Live Project (Longevity)’: “What are its lasting

6.3

Who manages the live project if it does

contributions to society and are these contributions as short-

continue?

lived as the projects themselves?’ and ‘What happens after a live project dies?’ (Beamont, 2008, p. 97)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

6.5

Question Should student’s live project work be

Beamont’s questions for further research included: “Should

assessed?

the assessment involve the client?” “Should the assessment be

Who leads and participates in the assessment of students’ live project work?

6.6

Purpose

student-led?” and “What is the level of success in the Live Projects and how can this be monitored? (Beamont, 2008, p. 97) On the subject of assessment, Lonergan & Andersen write that “it could be argued that the evidence of learning achieved

Should clients or students participate

through field-based activities may deserve to be presented or

in the academic assessment of

demonstrated in a variety of different ways, many of which do

students’ live project work?

not lend themselves to being assessed.” (Lonergan & Andersen, 1998, p. 75) Considering whether live projects or education in the field might help counter the anecdotally widespread condition of grade-chasing amongst students, Grundy-Warr writes that “field-studies seem to help students to become less obsessed with grades as they ... become immersed in teamwork, research and projects.” (GrundyWarr, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 50)

6.7

How are the live projects themselves

Questions 6.7 and 6.8 are prompted by the observation of

evaluated after their completion?

Kent et al who note that “debriefing of students is a critical but often neglected part of student fieldwork.” (Kent et al.,1997, p.

6.8

Should clients or students participate

322)

in the evaluation of live projects?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Question

Purpose

What skills do live projects develop in

Questions 6.9 and 6.10 relate to perceived changes in the

your students that other projects

function of higher education, and how these have impacted

might not develop?

the development of curricula across all disciplines. Altbach writes that “education is becoming an internationally traded

6.10

What skills do live projects not develop in your students?

commodity. No longer is it seen primarily as a set of skills, attitudes, and values required for citizenship and effective participation in modern society—a key contribution to the common good of any society. Rather, it is increasingly seen as a commodity to be purchased by a consumer in order to build a ‘skill set’ to be used in the marketplace or a product to be bought and sold by multinational corporations, academic institutions that have transmogrified themselves into businesses, and other providers.” (Altbach, 2002) Likewise Bonnen notes that” “knowledge has become a highly valued input in the production processes of society, largely as a consequence of the application of science to the activities of man. Whereas university education had previously been viewed in the U.S. primarily as a cultural or a consumer good that might advantage an individual, it now tends also to be viewed as a producer’s good that is necessary to the functioning of society. This change has given rise to research and development activities in universities and in industry that early on in the information revolution were termed “the knowledge industry.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 43)

6.11

Does the university as an institution

A closing question to the section, intended to establish

wholly support the live projects?

whether live projects (as pedagogical experiments or established features of the curricula) are supported by those in HE management.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Concluding questions

No. 7.1

Question Are there any matters relating to live

Purpose Wrap-up questions, intended to catch any missed points.

projects and architectural education that we havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t discussed today, which you would you like discuss?

7.2

Are there any questions that I havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t asked you, which you believe I have overlooked?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 8 Comparison of pilot and revised interview schedules Pilot interview schedule

Revised interview schedule

(questions asked in numerical order)

0 background information 0.1 How many years have you been involved in architectural education?

Notes

Section 0 added to provide important comparable background questions. Also used to help verify pre-interview research and construct accurate respondent profiles.

0.2 Has that involvement primarily been at full or part time? 0.3 Have you had any direct personal experience of live projects, either as a student or tutor?

2 the relationship between architectural education and architectural practice

1 architectural education

Sections 1 & 2 re-ordered in revised interview schedule in order to foreground broader perceptions of architectural education before focusing on the live project.

2.1 The five year structure of architectural education, with additional practice experience, is now the established structure for architectural education in this country. Are you satisfied with the length, structure and shape of architectural education?

1.1 The five year programme of university-based architectural education, with additional practice experience, is now the established structure in this country. Based on your experiences, are you satisfied with the length, structure and shape architectural education in this country?

Minor re-wording for purposes of

2.2 What advantages do you believe a university-based education has over its predecessor, a completely practice-based apprenticeship?

1.2 What advantages do you believe a university-based education has over its predecessor, a completely practice-based apprenticeship?

No revisions.

2.3 What are the greatest threats or pressures which threaten to affect the quality of your teaching or research over which you have no control?

1.3 Thinking first about your teaching, what are the greatest external pressures (over which you have no control) which threaten to affect the quality of your work?

Minor re-wording for purposes of clarity. Question separated out to distinguish teaching and research activities.

clarity.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

pressures which threaten to affect clarity. Question separated out to the quality of your teaching or distinguish teaching and research Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown - jamesbenedictbrown@yahoo.co.uk research over which you have no activities. control? Pilot interview schedule Revised interview schedule Notes (questions asked in numerical order)

(questions asked in numerical order)

1.4 Thinking now about your research, what are the greatest external pressures (over which you have no control) which threaten to affect the quality of your work?

1 definitions and clarification

2 live projects in architectural education

Sections 1 & 2 re-ordered in revised interview schedule in order to foreground broader perceptions of architectural education before focusing on the live project.

1.1 In the context of architectural

2.1 In the context of architectural

No revisions.

education, how would you describe

a live project?

1.2 Thinking about live projects in

2.2 Thinking about live projects in

architectural education, can you

name three schools or

programmes, either in this country

or abroad which you would regard

or abroad, which you would regard

as being influential.

1.3 How do you know about these

2.3 How did you come to know

Minor re-wording for purposes of

projects?

about these projects?

clarity.

1.4 Do live projects exist in

2.4 Do live projects exist in

No revisions.

disciplines other than architecture?

1.5 If these projects according to

2.5 If live projects in other

Minor re-wording for purposes of

these definitions are not always

disciplines are not always called

clarity.

defined as live projects, what else

live projects, what else might they

might they be known as?

be known as?

3 live projects and their location / timing

No revisions.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Revised interview schedule

(questions asked in numerical order)

Notes

3.1 At which stage or level of a five

Minor re-wording for purposes of

year course in architecture are live

year course in architecture do you

clarity.

projects most effective or useful?

think are live projects most effective?

3.3 What is the optimum length of

3.2 What is the optimum length of

No revisions. Note that pilot

time for a live project to run?

interview schedule had no question 3.2.

3.4 Does the preparation of a live

3.3 Does the preparation before a

No revisions.

project require more or less staff

live project require more or less

input than comparable studio-

staff input than comparable

based projects?

studio-based projects?

3.5 Does the running of a live

3.4 Does the running of a live

project require more or less staff

input than comparable studio-

based projects?

3.6 Does a live project cost more or

3.5 Does a live project cost more or

less to run than comparable studio-

based projects?

3.7 Do you regard live projects as

3.6 Do you regard live projects as

primarily teaching or research

activities?

3.8 Did the live projects replace

3.7 In order to make room for the

Minor re-wording for purposes of

something else in the curriculum,

live projects in your curriculum,

clarity.

or were they in addition to it?

what other activities, courses or

No revisions.

modules were changed, moved or replaced?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Revised interview schedule

(questions asked in numerical order)

3.9 Was the live project

3.8 Was the live project

programme developed as a

response to any particular issue?

4 live projects and their stakeholders

Pilot interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

Notes

No revisions.

Revised interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

Notes

4.1a Can you suggest how a school

4.1 From the point of view of the

Questions 4.1a and 4.1b merged for

of architecture might benefit from

school as a whole, what are the pros

clarity and to invite respondents to

the inclusion of live projects in its

and cons of including live projects

weigh up advantages and

curriculum?

in the curriculum?

disadvantages at the same time, perhaps suggesting nature of any compromise.

4.1b Can you suggest how a school of architecture might suffer with the inclusion of live projects in its curriculum?

4.2a Can you suggest how students

4.2 From the point of view of the

Questions 4.2a and 4.2b merged for

might benefit from the inclusion

students, what are the pros and

clarity and to invite respondents to

of live projects in their studies?

cons of including live projects in

weigh up advantages and

their curriculum?

disadvantages at the same time, perhaps suggesting nature of any

4.2b Can you suggest how students

compromise.

might suffer with the inclusion of live projects in their studies?

4.3a Can you suggest how live

4.3 From the point of view of the

Questions 4.3a and 4.3b merged for

project clients might benefit from

clients, what are the pros and cons

clarity and to invite respondents to

the working with students of

being involved in a live project?

weigh up advantages and

architecture?

disadvantages at the same time, perhaps suggesting nature of any compromise.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

4.3 From the point of view of the Questions 4.3a and 4.3b merged for Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown jamesbenedictbrown@yahoo.co.uk clients, what-are the pros and cons clarity and to invite respondents to Pilot interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

being involved in a live project? Revised interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

weigh up advantages and Notes disadvantages at the same time, perhaps suggesting nature of any compromise.

4.3b Can you suggest how live project clients might suffer the working with students of architecture? 4.4 What motivates students to be

4.4 If students can choose between

Minor re-wording for purposes of

involved with live projects?

being involved in ‘live’ and ‘non-

clarity.

live’ projects, what motivates them to be involved with live projects?

4.5 What motivates clients to be

No revisions.

involved with live projects?

4.6 How do you mediate between

the expectations of the client(s) and

the students?

4.7 Can you recall any instances in

4.7 Can you recall any live projects

Minor re-wording for purposes of

this school where this has been

where this has been successful?

clarity.

4.8 Can you recall any instances in

4.8 Can you recall any live projects

Minor re-wording for purposes of

this school where this has been

where this has been difficult?

clarity.

No revisions.

successful?

difficult?

6 before the live project

5 before the live project

6.1 How are potential live projects

5.1 How are potential live project

identified?

clients identified?

6.2 Who is normally responsible

5.2 Who is normally responsible

for identifying potential live

projects?

6.3 For what reasons might a

5.3 For what reasons might a

proposed live project not be taken

forward?

No revisions.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Revised interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

Notes

6.4 Are public or private clients

5.4 Are public or private clients

No revisions.

better suited for live projects?

6.4 Who is normally responsible

5.5 Who is normally responsible

Minor re-wording for purposes of

for designing the brief?

for designing the live project brief?

clarity.

6.5 Should students and clients

5.6 Should students and clients be

No revisions.

part of that process together?

7 after the live project

6 after the live project

7.1 How does a live project

6.1 How does a live project

conclude?

7.2 Can a live project be extended

6.2 Can a live project be extended

beyond its planned conclusion?

7.3 Who manages the live project if

6.3 Who manages the live project if

it does continue?

7.6 Should live projects be assessed?

6.4 Should student’s live project

Minor re-wording for purposes of

work be assessed?

clarity.

7.7 Who leads and participates in

6.5 Who leads and participates in

Minor re-wording for purposes of

the assessment of live projects?

the assessment of students’ live

clarity.

No revisions.

project work?

7.8 Can clients benefit from

6.6 Should clients or students

Minor re-wording for purposes of

participating in the academic

participate in the academic

clarity.

assessment of students’ work?

assessment of students’ live project work?

7.4 How are live projects evaluated

6.7 How are the live projects

Minor re-wording for purposes of

after their completion?

themselves evaluated after their

clarity.

completion?

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Revised interview schedule (questions asked in numerical order)

Notes

7.5 Are clients or students part of

6.8 Should clients or students

Minor re-wording to invite broader

that process?

participate in the evaluation of live

discussion of personal “should/

projects?

should not” hypotheses.

7.9 What skills do live projects

6.9 What skills do live projects

Re-wording for purposes of clarity.

develop in your students?

develop in your students that other projects might not develop?

7.10 Does participation in live projects enhance your students’

6.10 What skills do live projects not

skills?

develop in your students?

7.11 Does the university as an

6.11 Does the university as an

institution wholly support the live

projects?

projects? 7 conclusion 7.1 Are there any matters relating to live projects and architectural education that we haven’t

No revisions.

Section 7 was added to provide formal “catch-all” questions for respondent to volunteer any information or opinion not solicited by the researcher.

discussed today, which you would you like discuss?

7.2 Are there any questions that I haven’t asked you, which you believe I have overlooked?

Section 7 added to provide formal “catch-all” questions for respondent to volunteer any information or opinion not solicited by the researcher.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 9 Concepts Category identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept

FLEX (14)

STUD (6)

The design studio gives architecture a unique opportunity to experiment with live projects

FLEX (5)

The flexibility of architecture within academia

KITE (1)

Schools of architecture using live projects “to fly kites” in terms of testing possibilities

TIMI (1)

Live projects test and propose alternative ways of timing and locating teaching contact hours

INHE (1)

Studio is inherently “inefficient” compared to other university disciplines

ACCE (9)

The client must accept certain conditions

ETHO (9)

ETHO (8)

Live projects being representative or indicative of a school’s ethos or agenda

IDEO (1)

Can live projects ever represent or reinforce an entire school’s ideology?

PUTT (7)

Differing approaches to relating to architectural practices: “we’re not putting architects out of work”

SELF (7)

FOCU (3)

Short projects that counteract the architectural culture of working up to the last minute

LAST (3)

Live projects countering (or supporting?) the culture of architecture students working up until the last minute

SELF (1)

Countering the self-referential nature of the studio

DIFF (2)

Live projects reveal and value different skills allowing different students to be successful / valued

VALUE (2)

Live projects disrupt, challenge and propose alternatives to normal academic value systems.

MEAN (1)

Connecting students’ perceptions / feelings of project being meaningful or useful to project success

PREF (1)

Clients and tutors (the academics) may have different preferences about which is the best project and why. What are the implications for assessment?

SERI (1)

Students appreciating / ________ that their work in live projects is taken seriously by the clients and stakeholders

VALU (7)

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Concept identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept

PUTT (6)

The unexpected domino effect of live projects

GROU (6)

GROU (5)

The implications of a client representative not adequately briefing, preparing or engaging other stakeholders in the client group

RESP (1)

Whose responsibility is it - the client, academics or student - to prepare and brief the whole client group

OPPO (6)

Distinguishing between schools that have an established live project infrastructure (or project office) and projects that are “opportunistic”

ABST (5)

Circumstances and projects when students benefit from looking at something in complete abstraction

ACAD (5)

What makes a live project academic

INFL (5)

Live Projects influencing decision makers

MATU (5)

Understanding students’ maturity

RIBA (5)

The relationship to the RIBA / ARB criteria

BUIL (4)

The importance some academics place on the intention to build in their definitions of live projects

CONT (4)

The continuity of primary to secondary to tertiary education, and the relationship specifically between tertiary and secondary levels

MANA (4)

Managing reality, engaging with reality or surrendering to it?

AVOI (3)

Avoiding construction or build projects (as opposed to hypothetical or envisioning projects) because of the complexities of planning permission, building regulations, health and safety, insurance etc

HOBB (3)

Without an infrastructure, staff-led or staff-driven live projects can become hobby horses

HOSP (3)

“You don’t have hospitals of architecture”

INDI (3)

Preferring to work with individual/private or group/public/third sector clients

MEDI (3)

Varying degrees of mediation by the academic staff

ORDE (3)

ORDE (2)

Preferring order and control of the abstract design studio to ____________ of live projects

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Concept identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept

UNCE (1)

Live projects reject an abstract project’s certainty and embrace a client’s uncertainty

PART (3)

We are not adequately addressing the issues relating to participation in live projects

PEER (3)

Skepticism towards peer learning and review based on teacher’s own experience of one-to-one teaching and mentoring

QUES (3)

Questioning own definition of live projects in architectural education (perhaps because of this survey)

ALTE (2)

Expressing a desire for some alternative path to architectural qualification

BACK (2)

Going back, with or without students, re-visiting or doing postoccupancy studies

CANN (2)

Being canny about getting Research out of live projects

CHAL (2)

Risk in live projects is that (less confident?) students will not challenge the brief or client

COMM (2)

Clients must commit something to a project

DESI (2)

Design quality suffers as a result of engaging in the pragmatics of live or built projects (not as good as in studio)

DETA (2)

University strategies for staffing (fewer p/t staff and more f/t academic posts) is leading to an increasing detachment of architectural education from practice

EROS (2)

On the erosion of the architect’s practice by new disciplines

ETHI (2)

ETHI (1)

Ethical problems cannot be taught in the abstract design studio

SOCI (1)

By their very nature, live projects raise questions about the social responsibility of architects and of architecture.

INTE (2)

Employing interns (students) during the summer months who can earn enough to pay their fees

OUTR (2)

The role of the university in relation to communities, outside bodies

PERC (2)

Live projects might be perceived as requiring less time, input and/or structure than they actually do

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Concept identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept

POLI (2)

Situating live projects in a broader political landscape of higher education

POWE (2)

Where does the power lie in a live project?

REJE (2)

Rejecting the client’s brief and/or requirements

RESE (2)

Contractual research and teaching obligations lead academics to focus their live projects on particular subjects

SEPA (2)

The tendency of architecture to separate academia and practice into two separate endeavours

SHAD (2)

“shades of live”

TANG (2)

The tangibility of live projects

ANAG (1)

Managing the expectations of the clients and stakeholders

CHOO (1)

Students choosing projects because of site, content, etc; not necessarily because the project is live

CONS (1)

Normative architectural education designs without constraints. Live projects re-introduce these constraints.

ENGA (1)

Students demonstrate a greater degree of engagement when they have chosen their own client

FREE (1)

By not charging for live project services, client gratitude lessens problems and reduces risk

GOOD (1)

What is a good live project client?

INOU (1)

Embedding the live project into the curriculum (or vice versa) or using a live project as a special occasion “outside” the studio

IREL (1)

Maybe Ireland can offer insights to UK, repeating the situation of recession causing graduates to take time away

LANG (1)

Live projects build knowledge in a way that couldn’t be formalised in a classroom situation

LECT (1)

The less live a project is, the more like a lecturer the students will treat the client

LEVE (1)

A non-hierarchical “level” relationship can exist between client and students

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Concept identifier (& number of occurrences)

Concept

NORI (1)

Learning from talking to clients the need to question everything, there is no right answer

OUTP (1)

Seeing and understanding other schools’ live practices through their output

PRAC (1)

Questioning the emphasis in UG architectural education towards normative professional practice (when the majority of UG graduates don’t become architects)

PRIO (1)

Are the priorities of live project clients close to the issues of interest to students?

PROB (1)

Who sets the design problem?

PUBL (1)

Architecture “is a very public activity”

RACT (1)

Using a contract to agree / commit with client

SCAL (1)

The scale, function and programme of the live project is determined by the limitations of the academic year cycle

SOCC (1)

Using live projects as a means of engendering social change, or introducing narrow social mix of students to wider social realities

SUST (1)

Questioning the sustainability of live projects and project offices

WELL (1)

Wellbeing, welfare and health and social issues as the common thread between disciplines

YEAR (1)

Live projects are shoe-horned into the ~ 30 week academic year. This constrains possibilities, rules out longer / built projects

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 10 Sample coded transcript 1

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 11 Sample coded transcript 2

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 12 Sample concept notebook pages These pages have been anonymised. Concepts indexed by four-character indentifier; codes listed under concept title with (redacted) respondent identifier and page number.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Appendix 13 Bibliography ABDULLAH, F., 2006. An evaluation of problem based learning in architectural education. PhD edn. University of Strathclyde. ABRAMSON, D.B., 2005. The Studio Abroad as a Mode of Transcultural Engagement in Urban Planning Education: A Reflection on Ten Years of Sino-Canadian Collaboration. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), pp. 89-102. AHEARN, A., 2005. Constructionarium: Building to Learn. CEBE Transactions, 2(1), pp. 6-16. AHRENTZEN, S. and ANTHONY, K.H., 1993. Sex, Stars, and Studios: A Look at Gendered Educational Practices in Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), pp. 11-29. AIAS, ed, 2008. AIAS Issue Brief on Architectural Education. Washington DC: AIAS. ALBRECHT, J., 1988. Towards a Theory of Participation in Architecture: An Examination of Humanistic Planning Theories. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(1), pp. 24-31. ALLEY, S. and SMITH, M., 27 January, 2004-last update, Timeline: tuition fees [The Guardian], [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students [1 June, 2011]. ALLWINKLE, S., 2008. Architectural Technology 50 years on: Oxford to Oxford, SAAT to CIAT. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 267-272. ALTBACH, P.G., 2002. Knowledge and Education as International Commodities : The Collapse of the Common Good. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text001.htm edn. Boston: Boston College. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS (AIAS), 2002. The Redesign of Studio Culture - a report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington DC: AIAS. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, June 2001, 2001-last update, Code of Medical Ethics [AMA], [Online]. Available: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medicalethics/code-medical-ethics.shtml [8/9, 2010]. ANON, 1973. Bristol sets a new pattern for further education. Architects Journal, (25 April), pp. 964-965. ANON, 1962. Birmingham School of Architecture. The Builder, (15 June), pp. 1238-1241. ANON, 1961. Joint education in building. Architect & Building News, (3 May), pp. 573-574. ANON, 1951. Houses at Rednal designed by students (third year) of the Birmingham School of Architecture. The Builder, (14 December), pp. 830. ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BOARD, nd, The Architects Act 1997: Q&A. Available: http:// www.arb.org.uk/about/the-architects-act-1997-qanda.shtml [4/8/2009, 2009]. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION, 2000. Creative spaces: a toolkit for participatory urban design/architecture. London: Architecture Foundation. ARNSTEIN, S.R., 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, (June), pp. 216-224. ARONOWITZ, S. and GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Postmodern Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. ARONOWITZ, S. and GIROUX, H.A., 1986. Education under siege: the conservative, liberal and radical debate over schooling. New York: Routledge. ASCHER-BARNSTONE, D., 2002. Building Designs for Living: Studio 804 University of Kansas. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), pp. 186-193. ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE, 2009. Guide to Architecture Schools. 8th edn. Washington DC: ACSA. AU, W., 2007. Epistemology of the Oppressed: The Dialectics of Paulo Freire's Theory of Knowledge. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2),. AUSBURG, T., 2006. Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. 2 edn. New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. AWAN, N., SCHNEIDER, T. and TILL, J., 2011. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. Abingdon: Routledge. BARNETT, R., 2000. Supercomplexity and the Curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), pp. 255-265. BARR, J., OGDEN, K., RADFORD, J. and ROONEY, K., 2009. Sustainable involvement of real patients in medical education: thanks to volunteerism and relationship management. Medical education, 43(6), pp. 599-600. BAXAMUSA, M.H., Spring 2008. Empowering Communities through Deliberation The Model of Community Benefits Agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(3), pp. 261-276. BEAMONT, O., 2008. A Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Perspective: The Theory and Practice of Live Projects. M Architecture edn. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. BEARD, C. and WILSON, J.P., 2006. Experiential Learning : A Best Practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page. BECKLEY, R.M., 1984. The studio is where a professional architect learns to make judgments. Architectural Record, 172(10), pp. 103-105. BELL, B., ed, 2004. Good deeds, good design : community service through architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

BELL, B., ed, 2004. Studio at Large: Architecture in Service of Global Communities (Sustainable Design Solutions from the Pacific Northwest). University of Washington Press. BELL, B. and WAKEFORD, K., eds, 2008. Expanding Architecture - Design As Activism. New York: Metropolis Books. BELL, K., BOSHUIZEN, H.P.A., SCHERPBIER, A. and DORNAN, T., 2009. When only the real thing will do: junior medical students' learning from real patients. Medical education, 43(11), pp. 1036-1043. BELL, A.C. and RUSSELL, C.L., 2000. Beyond Human, beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'ĂŠducation, 25(3), pp. 188-203. BERGER, P. and LUCKMANN, T., 1971. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin. BEST, S. and KELLNER, D., 1997. The Postmodern Turn. New York: The Guilford Press. BEST, S. and KELLNER, D., 1991. Postmodern Theory : Critical Interrogations. New York: Guilford Press. BLANDEN, J. and MACHIN, S., 2004. Educational inequality and the expansion of UK Higher Education. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(2), pp. 230-249. BLOGSTER, N., 2007. A little bit of change. Mark, (8), pp. 68-79. BLUMENFELD-JONES, D., Fidelity as a criterion for practicing and evaluating narrative inquiry. Routledge. BLUNDELL JONES, P., PETRESCU, D. and TILL, J., eds, 2005. Architecture and participation. London: Spon. BOK, D.C., 1983. A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training. Journal of Legal Education, 33, pp. 570-585. BONNEN, J.T., 1998. The Land-Grant Idea and the Evolving Outreach University. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 25-72. BORDEN, IAIN AND RENDALL, JANE, ed, 2000. Intersections: Architectural Histories and Critical Theories. London: Routledge. BOUDON, P., 1972. Lived-in Architecture. London: Lund Humphries. BOURDIEU, P., 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press. BOURDIEU, P., 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), pp. 723-744.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

BOYER, E.L., 1996. The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), pp. 11-20. BOYER, E.L. and HECHINGER, F.M., 1981. Higher Learning in the Nation's Service. A Carnegie Foundation Essay. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation. BOYER, E.L. and MITGANG, L.D., 1996. Building Community : A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. BRABECK, M.E.A., 1998. Changing the Culture of the University to Engage in Outreach Scholarship. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 335-364. BRAIN, D., 1989. Discipline & Style: The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Social Production of an American Architecture. Theory and Society, 18(6), pp. 807-868. BRAIN, D., 1991. Practical Knowledge and Occupational Control: The Professionalization of Architecture in the United States. Sociological Forum, 6(2), pp. 239-268. BRAND, R. and RINCÓN, H., 2007. Tackling Six Common Dilemmas in ‘Live’ Planning Projects. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2(2), pp. 36-60. BROWN, D.S., 2009. Having Words. London: Architectural Association. BROWN, D.S., 2009. Sexism and the Star System in Architecture. Having Words. London: Architectural Association, pp. 79-89. BROWN, R. and YATES, D.M., 2001. WHERE HAVE YOU GONE JOE DIMAGGIO? . BUCHANAN, P., 1989. What is wrong with architectural education? Almost everything? Architectural Review, (1109), pp. 24-26. BUCHANAN, J., 2001. Use of simulation technology in dental education. Journal of dental education, 65(11), pp. 1225-1231. BUDDEN, L.B., 1925. Review of the Congress, International Congress on Architectural Education, 28 July to 2 August 1924 1925, Royal Institute of British Architects, pp. xi-xvi. BURNS, C., 1998. Review: Re: Views of Findings on Architecture's Way Forward. Journal of Architectural Education, 51(3), pp. 153-157. CABE, 2004. Architecture and race : Black and minority ethnic students in the profession. London: CABE. CAKIN, S., TEACHING BEYOND THE STUDIO. CAROLIN, P., 2000. Leslie Martin : 1908 - 2000. Architectural Research Quarterly, 4(4), pp. 295-308. CAROLIN, P., 1997. Research assessed. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 2(03), pp. 6-11. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

CARPENTER, W., 2004. Design and construction in architectural education : 1963-2003. PhD edn. Birmingham: University of Central England in Birmingham. CARPENTER, W., 1997. Learning by Building : design and construction in architectural education. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. CARRIER, J., 1991. Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange. Sociological Forum, 6(1), pp. 119-136. CARTER, J., 1959. Self build at the Birmingham School. Architects Journal, (15 October), pp. 353-355. CASTRO, F.G., KELLISON, J.G., BOYD, S.J. and KOPAK, A., 2010. A Methodology for Conducting Integrative Mixed Methods Research and Data Analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), pp. 342-360. CHANDLER, A., 2004. "Building is a verb" : Workshop as a research forum, CEBE Studio Culture, 2004 2004, CEBE. CHAPMAN, B., 1997. Conceptual Issues and the Australian Experience with Income Contingent Charges for Higher Education. The Economic Journal, 107(442), pp. 738-751. CHARLEY, J., 2010. The shadow of economic history: the architecture of boom, slump and crisis. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 14(04), pp. 363. CHARMAZ, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CHARMAZ, K., 2005. Grounded Theory in the 21st Century. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 507-535. CHARMAZ, K., 2000. Grounded Theory : Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 509-535. CHASE, J.D., OAKES, E. and RAMSEY, S., 2007. Using live projects without pain: the development of the small project support center at Radford University, SIGCSE '07: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education 2007, ACM, pp. 469-473. CHILES, P., 2004. Practice and the academy Critical clarifications. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 8(3-4), pp. 197-203. CHILES, P. and HOLDER, A., 2008. The Live Project. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, . CHILES, P. and TILL, J., nd. Live Projects : An inspirational model, the student perspective. York: Centre for Education in the Built Environment. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

CHIONG, W., 2007. Justifying Patient Risks Associated With Medical Education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(9), pp. 1046-1048. CLARKE, A., 2005. Situational Analysis : Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CLEWS, D., 2001. Technologia, techne and the teaching of design, AEE2001. COBEN, D., 1998. Radical Heroes : Gramsci, Freire and the politics of adult education. New York: Garland. COHEN, L., MANION, L. and MORRISON, K., 2007. Research Methods in Education. Sixth edn. London: Routledge. COLQUHOUN, D., 2003. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors. Nature, 423, pp. 479. COMERIO, M.C., 1987. Design and Empowerment : 20 Years of Community Architecture. Built Environment, 13(1), pp. 15-28. COMERIO, M.C., 1984. Community Design : Idealism and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, (1), pp. 227-243. COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2011. Eighth Report Peer review in scientific publications. London: HM Government. COMPETITION COMMISSION, 1977. Architects' Services: A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees. London: Competition Commission. CORSER, R. and GORE, N., 2009. Insurgent Architecture: An Alternative Approach to DesignBuild. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 32-39. COUZIN, J., , Rent Strikes : Radical Glasgow : Glasgow Caledonian University. Available: http:// www.gcal.ac.uk/radicalglasgow/chapters/rent_strikes.html#Glasgow [10/25/2009, 2009]. COYNE, R. and SNODGRASS, A., 1991. Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies, 12(3), pp. 124-131. CRAMER, J.P. and SIMPSON, S., 2006. The Next Architect: A New Twist on the Future of Design. Ostberg. CRESSWELL, J., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. 2nd edn. Thousands Oaks: Sage. CRESSWELL, J., 1994. Research design : qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage. CRINSON, M. and LUBBOCK, J., 1994. Architecture - art or profession. Manchester: Manchester University Press. CROSS, N., 1990. The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), pp. 127-140. CRYSLER, C.G., 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), pp. 208-217. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

CUFF, D., 1991. Architecture : the story of practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. CUNNINGHAM, A., 2005. Notes on education and research around architecture. The Journal of Architecture, 10(4), pp. 415. CUNNINGHAM, A., 1980. Educating around architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 5(2), pp. 131. CUNNINGHAM, A., 1979. The genesis of architectural education. Studies in Higher Education, 4(2), pp. 131. DAMMERS, J., SPENCER, J. and THOMAS, M., 2001. Using real patients in problem-based learning: students' comments on the value of using real, as opposed to paper cases, in a problembased learning module in general practice. Medical education, 35(1), pp. 27-34. DARDER, A., BALTODANO, M.P. and TORRES, R.D., eds, 2009. The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge. DAVIDOFF, P., 1965. ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), pp. 331-338. DAVIS, C.J., 1960. Live Projects at the School of Architecture Birmingham. Architects Journal, (6 October), pp. 516-518. DAWKINS, J., AUSTRALIA. DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT, E., and TRAINING, 1987. Higher education: a policy discussion paper. Dept. of Employment, Education and Training. DE CARLO, G., 2005. Architecture's Public. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J. TILL, eds, Architecture and Participation. First edn. London: Spon, pp. 3-22. DE CARLO, G., 1980. An Architecture of Participation. Perspecta, 17, pp. 74-79. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON, A., MANLEY, S. and GREED, C., 2003. Why do women leave architecture? London: Royal Institute of British Architects. DEAN, A.O., 2005. Proceed and be bold : Rural Studio after Samuel Mockbee. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. DEAN, A.O., 2002. Rural Studio : Samuel Mockbee and an architecture of decency. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. DEARING, R., 23 July, 1997-last update, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education [Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland], [Online]. Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [1 June, 2011]. DENZIN, N.K. and LINCOLN, Y.S., eds, 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2011. National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030. Dublin: Higher Education Authority. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

DEWAR, M.E. and ISAAC, C.B., Summer 1998. Learning from Difference: The Potentially Transforming Experience of Community-University Collaboration. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), pp. 334-347. DEWEY, J., 1963. Experience & Education. New York: Collier Books. DEWEY, J., 1896. The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological review, 3(4), pp. 357-370. DICKINSON, M., 2000. Giving undergraduates managerial experience. Education + Training, 42(3), pp. 159-170. DOBSON, A., 28 January, 2000-last update, The Cubie Report explained [The Guardian], [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/jan/28/ tuitionfees.highereducation [1 June, 2011]. DODDS, G., 2009. Editorial: Alterity | Alternative. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 3-3. DOIDGE, C.E.A., ed, 2000. The Crit: An Architecture Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Handbook. Oxford: Architectural Press. DORNAN, T. and BUNDY, C., 2004. What can experience add to early medical education? Consensus survey. BMJ, 329, pp. 834-839. DORRELL, E., 7/29, 2003-last update, Closed doors [The Guardian], [Online]. Available: http:// www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jul/29/highereducation.cutsandclosures?INTCMP=SRCH [11/16, 2011]. DUGGAN, F., 2004. The Changing Nature of the Studio as an Educational Setting. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), pp. 70-76. DUTTON, T.A., ed, 1991. Voices in architectural education : cultural politics and pedagogy. London: Bergin & Garvey. DUTTON, T.A., 1991. Cultural Politics and Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 67-68. DUTTON, T.A., 1987. Design and Studio Pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), pp. 16-25. EDWARDS, E., 2008. Third-level fees: a timeline of the third-level fees debate. The Irish Times, . EGAN, J., April, 2004-last update, The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister], [Online]. Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/ documents/communities/pdf/152086.pdf [9/19, 2011]. ELLIS, R. and CUFF, D., eds, 1989. Architects' People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

ELLSWORTH, E., 1989. Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), pp. 297-297. EPSTEIN, R.M. and HUNDERT, E.M., 2002. Defining and Assessing Professional Competence. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), pp. 226-235. ERDMAN, J. and WEDDLE, R., 2002. Designing/Building/Learning. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), pp. 174-179. ERDMAN, J., 2006. Studio South. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(4), pp. 19-25. ESTRADA, K. and MCLAREN, P., 1993. A Dialogue on Multiculturalism and Democratic Culture. Educational Researcher, 22(3), pp. 27-33. EWING, S.C., 2008. Coming and going : itinerant education and educational capital. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 119-123. EWING, K.P., 1998. Crossing Borders and Transgressing Boundaries: Metaphors for Negotiating Multiple Identities. Ethos, 26(2), pp. 262-267. FEARN, H., 8/21, 2008-last update, Grand designs but shaky foundations [Times Higher Education], [Online]. Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? sectioncode=26&storycode=403224 [11/16, 2011]. FISHER, T., 2008. Architectural design and ethics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. FISHER, T., 2000. In the scheme of things: alternative thinking on the practice of architecture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. FLOWERS, M., MOORE, J. and RYKER, L., 2009. Introduction. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 4-5. FLUID, 2005. Your place, or mine..? A study on participatory design, youth, public space and ownership. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J. TILL, eds, Architecture & Participation. London: Spon, pp. 247-273. FLYNN, S., 2011. Report urges student fees system. Irish Times, . FLYNN, S., 2004. Department looking at university fees from fourth year. Irish Times, . FLYNN, S., 2004. Student loan scheme 'inevitable'. Irish Times, . FLYNN, S., 2003. Dempsey plans radical reform of higher-level grants system. Irish Times, . FLYNN, S. and MCGUIRE, P., 2010. Less than 15% in some Dublin areas going to college. Irish Times, . FLYVBJERG, B., 2011. Case Study. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th Edition edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 301-316.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

FORNEY, J., 2005. Learning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year Ten. Architectural Design, 75(4), pp. 92-95. FORSYTH, A., 2008. Great Programs in Architecture: Rankings, Performance Assessments, and Diverse Paths to Prominence. Archnet-IJAR, 2(2), pp. 11-22. FORSTER, W.P., COOMBS, S. and THOMAS, R., 2008. The architect and the academy: research through design at the Welsh School of Architecture. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, . FORSYTH, A., LU, H. and MCGIRR, P., 2000. Service Learning in an Urban Context: Implications for Planning and Design Education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(3), pp. 236-259. FORSYTH, A., LU, H. and MCGIRR, P., 1999. Inside the Service Learning Studio in Urban Design. Landscape Journal, 18(2), pp. 166. FOWLES, B., 1984. Design-build projects in architectural education. Design Studies, 5(1), pp. 7-14. FOWLES, R.A., 1990. Teaching architecture: a complete action. Design Studies, 11(2), pp. 81-88. FRAMPTON, K., 2007. Modern architecture : a critical history. 4th edn. London: Thames & Hudson. FRANK, A.I., 2007. Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning education? Planning Practice and Research, 22(4), pp. 635. FRASER, M., 2005. The cultural context of critical architecture. The Journal of Architecture, 10(3), pp. 317-322. FREDERICKSON, M.P., 1993. Gender and Racial Bias in Design Juries. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), pp. 38-48. FREIRE, P., 2008. Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Continuum. FREIRE, P., 2004. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum. FREIRE, P., 2003. Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum. FREIRE, P., 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. FREIRE, P., 1996. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New revised 20th anniversary edition edn. London: Hammondsworth Penguin. FREIRE, P., 1978. Pedagogy in process: the letters to Guinea-Bissau. New York: Seabury Press. FRIEDAN, B., 2010. The Feminine Mystique. Revised edn. London: Penguin.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

GARDNER, R., 1974. The development of architectural education in the UK. Architects Journal, (9 October), pp. 873-881. GARROTT, J.G., 1983. Facilitating experiential learning in environmental design. Design Studies, 4(2), pp. 115-123. GELBIER, S., 2005. 125 years of developments in dentistry, 1880-2005 Part 2: Law and the dental profession. British Dental Journal, 199(7), pp. 470-473. GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, 2009. Tomorrow’s doctors. London: GMC. GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, 2003. Tomorrow’s doctors. London: GMC. GIBBS-KENNETT, P., 1997. Architecture's research dimension. Times Higher Education, (12 September),. GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Cultural Politics and Architectural Education : Refiguring the Boundaries of Political and Pedagogical Practice. In: T.A. DUTTON, ed, Voices in architectural education : cultural politics and pedagogy. London: Bergin & Garvey, pp. ix-xii. GIROUX, H.A., 1981. Ideology, Culture & the Process of Schooling. London: Falmer Press. GIROUX, H.A., 2010. Paulo Freire and the Crisis of the Political. Power and Education, 2(3), pp. 335-340. GIROUX, H.A., 2006. The Giroux Reader. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. GIROUX, H.A., 1993. Paulo Freire and the Politics of Postcolonialism. In: P. MCLAREN and P. LEONARD, eds, Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge, pp. 177-188. GIROUX, H.A., 2010. Lessons From Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education, . GIROUX, H.A., 1992. Border Crossings - Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. 1st edn. London: Routledge. GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Modernism/Postmodernism. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 69-79. GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Postmodernism. Social Text, (28), pp. 51-67. GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Democracy and the Discourse of Cultural Difference: towards a politics of border pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(4), pp. 501. GLOSTER, D., 2008. Pride and prejudice: illusions of consensus in architectural debate. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 255-260. GODFREY, P.C., 1999. A rejoinder to Kenworthy-U'Ren : Enlarging the tent of service-learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 388.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

GODFREY, P.C., 1999. Service-learning and management education: A call to action. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 363. GOLDSCHMIDT, G., 1995. The designer as a team of one. Design Studies, 16(2), pp. 189-209. GOSS, A., 1962. Realistic Projects at Birmingham. Architects Journal, (4 April), pp. 727-731. GOWAN, J., ed, 1975. A continuing experiment : learning and teaching at the Architectural Association. London: Architectural Press. GRAFTON, A., 2010. Britain: The Disgrace of the Universities. New York Review of Books, 57(6), pp. 32. GRAY, M.J., ONDAATJE, E.H. and ZAKARAS, L., 1999. Combining service and learning in higher education. Summary report. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. GROĂ K, S., 1988. UK architectural education: Trends and issues. Habitat International, 12(1), pp. 75-86. GROAT, L.N. and AHRENTZEN, S., 1996. Reconceptualizing Architectural Education for a More Diverse Future: Perceptions and Visions of Architectural Students. Journal of Architectural Education, 49(3), pp. 166-183. GROAT, L.N. and AHRENTZEN, S.B., 1997. Voices for Change in Architectural Education: Seven Facets of Transformation from the Perspectives of Faculty Women. Journal of Architectural Education, 50(4), pp. 271-285. GRUNDY-WARR, C., 2004. Reflections on Field-based Teaching and Learning. CDTL Brief, 7(9), pp. 10-12. GUEST, G., BUNCE, A. and JOHNSON, L., 2006. How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field Methods, 18(1), pp. 59-82. GUPTA, U.G. and CLARKE, R.E., 1996. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: a bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), pp. 185-211. GUTMAN, R., 1977. Architecture : the Entrepreneurial Profession. Progressive Architecture, 58(5),. GUY, S. and MOORE, S.A., 2007. Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(4), pp. 15-23. HARAWAY, D., 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599. HARDER, E., ed, 2005. EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in architectural education. 1st edn. Copenhagen: EAAE. HARDIN, M.C., ERIBES, R. and POSTER, C., eds, 2006. From the Studio to the Streets : ServiceLearning in Planning and Architecture. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

HARRIS, N., 2004. Experiential Learning in Built Environment Education. CEBE Transactions, 1(1), pp. 3-7. HARRIS, G., 2004. Lessons for Service Learning in Rural Areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), pp. 41-50. HARRISON, S., 1998. Between tower and street. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), pp. 5. HATHERLEY, O., 2009. Militant Modernism. Winchester: Zero Books. HAWKES, D., 2000. The architect and the academy. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4(01), pp. 35-39. HAWKES, D., 1995. The Centre and the Periphery: some reflections on the nature and conduct of architectural research. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 1(01), pp. 8-11. HAYES, R.W., 2007. The Yale Building Project: The First 40 Years. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. HEALEY, M., 2005. Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 183-201. HENDERSON, G., 2009. CEBE Briefng Guide Series, No.15: Part-time Teaching in Schools of Architecture. London: CEBE. HEYLINGS, D.J.A. and TARIQ, V.N., 1999. Employer - Linked Project Based Learning : Practical Experience and Guidelines. Queen's University Belfast: Enterprise QUB. HICKS, D.E., 1988. Deterritorialization and Border Writing. In: R. MERRILL, ed, Ethics / Aesthetics: Post-Modern Positions. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve Press, pp. 47-58. HIGGINS, M., 2005. Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through a 'Live' Project. CEBE Transactions, 2(2), pp. 63-73. HIGGINS, M., 2004. Urban Design Project in a Multi-Disciplinary European Context: Collaboration between Education and Practice. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), pp. 16-36. HIGGOTT, A., 2007. Mediating Modernism. Abingdon: Routledge. HIGHT, C., 2009. Alternating Currents. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 95-96. HINSON, D., 2002. Community Centered Design/Build Studio: Connecting the Past & the Future of Architectural Education. Auburn University. HINSON, D. and FREEAR, A., 2001. Educating Architects at the Rural Studio: Exploring New Models of Design Education in the Rural South, Confluences: The 2001 ACSA Southwest Regional Conference, 2001 2001. HINSON, D., 2007. Design as Research. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), pp. 23-26. HINTON, D., 1958. Live projects by the Birmingham School of Architecture. Architects Journal, (3 April), pp. 505-518. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

HIRSHEN, S. and DOVEY, K., 1981. Public Service Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 35(1), pp. 28-31. HMELO-SILVER, C.E., 2004. Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp. 235-266. HOLMAN, W., 2012. Lessons from the Front Lines of Social Design. http:// places.designobserver.com/feature/lessons-from-the-front-lines-of-social-design/31998/ edn. San Francisco, CA: The Design Observer Group. HOLMAN, D., PAVLICA, K. and THORPE, R., 1997. Rethinking Kolb's Theory of Experiential Learning in Management Education. Management Learning, 28(2), pp. 135-148. HOOKS, B., 1993. bell hooks speaking about Paulo Freire. In: P. MCLAREN and P. LEONARD, eds, Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge, pp. 146-154. HOU, J. and RIOS, M., 2003. Community-Driven Place Making. Journal of Architectural Education, 57(1), pp. 19-27. HOWE, A. and ANDERSON, J., 2003. Involving patients in medical education. BMJ, 327, pp. 327-328. ILLICH, I., 2002. Deschooling Society. London: Marion Boyars. ILLICH, I., 1973. Celebration of Awareness. London: Penguin. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF DENTAL EDUCATION, 1995. Dental education at the crossroads: challenges and change Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. ITIN, C.M., 1999. Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), pp. 91. IWAMOTO, L. and SCOTT, C., 2001. Surface/Thickness Translated: Design-Build as Vehicle. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3), pp. 185-190. JACKSON, A., 1995. Reconstructing Architecture for the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. JAGSI, R. and SOLEYMANI LEHMANN, L., 2004. The ethics of medical education. BMJ, 329, pp. 332-334. JANN, M. and PLATT, S., 2009. Philanthropic Architecture - Nongovernmental Development Projects in Latin America. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 82-91. JEMTRUD, M. and CAZABON, Y.P., 2002. 1:1 @ Carleton University School of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), pp. 167-173. JENKINS, F., 1961. Architect and Patron. London: Oxford.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

JENKINS, P. and FORSYTH, L., eds, 2010. Architecture, Participation and Society. Abingdon: Routledge. JENKINS, P., MILNER, J. and SHARPE, T., 2010. A brief historical review of community technical aid and community architecture. In: P. JENKINS and L. FORSYTH, eds, Architecture, Participation and Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 23-38. JHA, V., QUINTON, N.D., BEKKER, H.L. and ROBERTS, T.E., 2009. Strategies and interventions for the involvement of real patients in medical education: a systematic review. Medical education, 43(1), pp. 10-20. JOHNSON-MARSHALL, P., 1965. Education for environmental design. RIBA Journal, (March), pp. 119-131. JONES, J.C., 1992. Design Methods. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley. JONES, J.C., 1991. Designing Designing. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press. JONES, J.C., 1970. Design Methods: seeds of human futures. 1st edn. London: WileyInterscience. JONES, J.C., 1963. A Method of Systematic Design. In: J.C. JONES and D.G. THORNLEY, eds, Conference on Design Methods. 1st edn. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 53-73. JONES, J.C. and THORNLEY, D.G., eds, 1963. Conference on Design Methods 1st edn. Oxford: Pergamon Press. KAYE, B., 1960. The development of the architectural profession in Britain. London: George Allen & Unwin. KEITH, J.G., PERKINS, D.F., GREER, J.C., MCKNIGHT CASEY, K. and FERRARI, T.M., 1998. The Young Spartan Programme. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, UniversityCommunity Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 289-314. KELLE, U., 2005. "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), pp. 27. KENT, M., GILBERTSON, D.D. and HUNT, C.O., 1997. Fieldwork in Geography Teaching : a critical review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), pp. 313-332. KENWORTHY-U'REN, A.L., 1999. Management students as consultants: An alternative perspective on the service-learning "call to action". Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 379-387. KIM, J., 2006. Exploring social construction in architectural pedagogy. Open House International, 31(3), pp. 51-59.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

KIM, J. and ABERNETHY, J., 2006. Service-Learning as a Holistic Inquiry and Community Outreach Studios. In: M.C. HARDIN, R. ERIBES and C. POSTER, eds, From the Studio to the Streets : Service-Learning in Planning and Architecture. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 139-153. KINCHELOE, J., 2008-last update, A Conversation with Peter McLaren [The Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy], [Online]. Available: http://freireproject.org/ content/peter-mclaren-video-interview [05/13, 2011]. KINCHELOE, J., 2008-last update, Henry Giroux Interview [The Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy], [Online]. Available: http://freireproject.org/ content/henry-giroux-interview [4/25, 2011]. KIRSCHNER, P.A., SWELLER, J. and CLARK, R.E., 2006. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, ProblemBased, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp. 75. KOLB, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development. 1st edn. London: Prentice-Hall. KOSTOF, S., ed, 1977. The Architect : chapters in the history of the profession. New York: Oxford University Press. KOUTSOUMPOS, L., 2007. Reconciliatory praxis: Bridging Ethics and Poetics in the Design Studio, , 13 -15 September 2007 2007. KROLL, L. and MIKELLIDES, B., 1981. Can Architecture Be Taught? JAE, 35(1), pp. 36-39. LANDAU, R., 1981. Notes on a concept of an architectural position. AA Files, 1(1), pp. 111-114. LANDETA, J., 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological forecasting and social change, 73(5), pp. 467-482. LAPSLEY, P., 2004. Commentary: Patients in medical education and research. BMJ, 329, pp. 334. LARSON, M.S., 1977. The Rise of Professionalism : A Sociological Analysis. Berkley, CA: University of California. LATOUR, BRUNO AND WEIBEL, PETER, ed, 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. LAVE, J. and WENGER, E., 1991. Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LAWRENCE, A., 2000. Changing architectural practice paradigms and their implications for professional education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(3), pp. 196-205. LAWSON, B., 2002. The subject that won't go away But perhaps we are ahead of the game. Design as research. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 6(02), pp. 109. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

LEDEWITZ, S., 1985. Models of Design in Studio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), pp. 2-8. LEON, P., 2004. Blueprints for healthy intellectual hothouses. Times Higher Education, (20 February),. LERNER, R.M. and SIMON, L.A.K., eds, 1998. University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century. New York: Garland. LEWIS, R., 2012. Clinical Legal Education Revisited. SSRN eLibrary, . LIFCHEZ, R., ed, 1987. Rethinking architecture : design students and physically disabled people. 1st edn. Berkeley: University of California Press. LIFCHEZ, R., 1981. Students as Research Subjects: Conflicting Agendas in the Classroom? JAE, 34(3), pp. 16-23. LIFCHEZ, R., 1978. Teaching a Social Perspective to Architecture Students. JAE, 31(3), pp. 11-15. LINDSEY, B., September 2007, 2007-last update, Community Works: Sambo Mockbee and the Rural Studio. Available: http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2007/09/ community_works.php [5/3/2009, 2009]. LINSTONE, H.A. and TUROFF, M., eds, 1975. The Delphi method : techniques and applications. London: Addison-Wesley. LIPMAN, A., 1970. Architectural education and the social commitment of contemporary British architecture. The Sociological review, 18(1), pp. 5-27. LLOYD, P. and SCOTT, P., 1994. Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), pp. 125-140. LONERGAN, N. and ANDERSEN, L.W., 1988. Field-Based Education : Some Theoretical Considerations. Higher Education Research & Development, 7(1), pp. 63-77. LUCK, R., 2007. Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28(3), pp. 217. MACLEAN, L. and WERNER, M., 2006. BUILDING COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS EFFECTIVELY. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(6), pp. 76-87. MARKUS, G.B., HOWARD, J.P.F. and KING, D.C., 1993. Integrating Community Service and Classroom Instruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), pp. 410-419. MARMOT, A. and SYMES, M., 1985. The social context of design: A case problem approach. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(4), pp. 27-31.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

MARTIN, L., 1960. An Overall View of the Architect's Training. Architects Journal, (3 November), pp. 658-659. MARTIN, L., 1958. Conference on Architectural Education. RIBA Journal, (June), pp. 279-283. MAUSS, M., 1990. The Gift: the Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: W. W. Horton. MAXWELL, J., 1992. Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), pp. 279-279. MAXWELL, R., 1983. The two theories of architecture. Architectural Education, (1), pp. 113-124. MAXWELL, R., 2000. Education for the creative act. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 4(01), pp. 55-66. MAYO, J.M., 1991. Dilemmas of Architectural Education in the Academic Political Economy. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 80-89. MAYO, J.M., 1988. Critical Reasoning for an Enlightened Architectural Practice. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(4), pp. 46-57. MCADAM, S., GUETERBOCK and PIPPA, 2005. Your place, or mine..? A study on participatory design, youth, public space and ownership. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J. TILL, eds, Architecture & Participation. London: Spon, pp. 247-273. MCGONIGAL, E., 2005. Trigger Paper to CEBE Studio Culture 3: The largest first year in the UK - size matters. London: CEBE. MCLAREN, P., 1998. Che: The pedagogy of Che Guevara: Critical pedagogy and globalization thirty years after Che. Cultural Circles, 3, pp. 29-103. MCLAREN, P. and LEONARD, P., eds, 1993. Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge. MCLAREN, P., 2009. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In: A. DARDER, M.P. BALTODANO and R.D. TORRES, eds, The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second Edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 61-83. MCLELLAN, E., MACQUEEN, K.M. and NEIDIG, J.L., 2003. Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data Preparation and Transcription. Field Methods, 15(1), pp. 63-84. MENIN, S., 2007. Sir Colin St. John ('Sandy') Wilson: 1922â€“2007. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 11(02), pp. 103-108. MEUNIER, J., 1987. Paradigms for Practice: A Task for Architectural Schools. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(2), pp. 47-49. MIESSEN, M. and BASAR, S., eds, 2006. Did Someone Say Participate? Cambridge, MA: MIT. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

MIETTINEN, R., 2000. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), pp. 54. MILLAIS, M., 2009. Exploding the Myths of Modern Architecture. London: Frances Lincoln. MILLER, D.W., 1999. The black hole of education research. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(48), pp. A17. MILLER, S.I. and FREDERICKS, M., 1999. How Does Grounded Theory Explain? Qualitative health research, 9(4), pp. 538-551. MILLINER, L., 2003. Architectural Education : Studio Culture Keynote Paper, CEBE Concrete Centre Studio Culture Conference, December 2003 2003, CEBE. MISHLER, E., 1990. Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), pp. 415-415-442. MOORE, K.D. and WANG, D., 2005. Reflection and Reciprocity in Interdisciplinary Design Service-Learning. In: M.C. HARDIN, R. ERIBES and C. POSTER, eds, From the Studio to the Streets. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 155-169. MOOS, DAVID AND TRECHSEL, GAIL, ed, 2003. Samuel Mockbee and the Rural Studio : community architecture. Birmingham, AL: Birmingham Museum of Art. MORROW, R., 2007. Creative Transformations. In: A. SALAMA and N. WILKINSON, eds, Design Studio Pedagogy: horizons for the Future. Urban International Press, . MORROW, R., MACKEL, C. and FITZGERALD, J.D., 2011. Beyond the shadow space: architecture as a professional and creative process; during and post-conflict. Routledge. MORSE, J.M., 1991. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing research, 40(2), pp. 120. MORSE, J.M., BARRETT, M., MAYAN, M., OLSON, K. and SPIERS, J., 2002. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp. 13-22. MOUFFE, C. and HOLDENGRÄBER, P., 1989. Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern? Social Text, (21, Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism), pp. 31-45. MUMFORD, E., 2000. The CIAM discourse on urbanism, 1928-1960. 1st edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT. MURRAY, P., 1973. AA/AA/Polyark Bus Tour. Architectural Design, 43(4), pp. 201-212. MUSGROVE, J., 1983. Architectural education : the growth of a disclipline. Architectural Education, (1), pp. 105-112. NARVÁEZ, L.M.J. and FEHÉR, G., 2000. Design's Own Knowledge. Design Issues, 16(1), pp. 36-51. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

NEEDHAM, J., 1962. Live Project at Sheffield. Architects Journal, (4 April), pp. 732. NICOL, D. and PILLING, S., eds, 2000. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism. London: E & FN Spon. NORBECK, J.S., CONNOLLY, C. and KOERNER, J., 1998. Introduction. In: J.S. NORBECK, C. CONNOLLY and J. KOERNER, eds, Caring And Community: Concepts And Models For Servicelearning In Nursing. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 1-6. OCHSNER, J.K., 2000. Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), pp. 194-206. O'NEILL, C., 1973. The Making of an Architect. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, , pp. 263-272. OSWALD, A., 2011. Data be damned: REF's blueprint for systemic intellectual corruption Times Higher Education, (September 22),. PAECHTER, C., PREEDY, M., SCOTT, D. and SOLER, J., eds, 2001. Knowledge, Power and Learning. 1st edn. London: P. Chapman in association with Open University. PALLASMAA, J., 2009. The Thinking Hand. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. PARNELL, S., 2008. Coverage of the 1958 Oxford Conference was harsh and influential. Architects Journal, (17 July), pp. 47. PATEL, K., 1999. Architects fear course renovation. Times Higher Education, (22 January),. PATEL, K., 1997. More power to the RIBA. Times Higher Education, (29 August),. PEACOCK, D.M., 1999. Charles Reilly and architectural education in Britain. PhD edn. University of Keele. PEARSON, J., 2002. A Context for University-Community Design Partnerships. In: J. PEARSON, ed, University-community design partnerships innovations in practice. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts, pp. 11-19. PEARSON, J., 2002. University-community design partnerships innovations in practice. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts. PERKES, D., 2009. A Useful Practice. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 64-71. PETRESCU, D. and CHILES, P., 2009. Agency: alternative practices and alternative worlds. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 13(02), pp. 109-111. PEVSNER, N., 1960. Pioneers of modern design. Rev. edn. London: Penguin. PFAMMATTER, U., 2000. The Making of the Modern Architect and Engineer. Basel: Birkhauser. PHILLIPS, E.M. and PUGH, D., S., 2005. How to get a PhD : a handbook for students and their supervisors. 4th edn. London: Open University Press. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

PIETROMARCHI, B., The [un] common place: art, public space and urban aesthetics in Europe. Spain: Actar. PORTER, S., 2007. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: reasserting realism in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), pp. 79-86. PRING, R., 2000. Philosophy of Educational Research. 2nd edn. London: Continuum. PRIZEMAN, M., 2005. Hooke Park As a New AA Initiative in Education. Architectural Design, 75(4), pp. 54-57. QUAY, J., 2003. Experience and Participation: Relating Theories of Learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(2), pp. 105-116. QUAYLE, M. and PATERSON, D., 1989. Techniques for Encouraging Reflection in Design. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(2), pp. 30-42. RAPOPORT, A., 1984. Architectural Education: There is an urgent need to reduce or eliminate the dominance of the studio. Architectural Record, 172(10), pp. 100-103. REAL, P.D., 2009. "Ye Shall Receive": The Rural Studio and the Gift of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 123-126. REYNOLDS, M., 1998. Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29(2), pp. 183. RIPLEY, C., THĂ&#x153;N, G. and VELIKOV, K., 2009. Matters of Concern. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 6-14. ROAF, S., ALEXANDER, C., BENNETTS, R. and PARISSIEN, S., 2008. Architectural education: the 1958 Oxford Conference revisited. BD, (6 June),. ROAF, S. and BAIRSTOW, A., eds, 2008. The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2nd edn. Southampton: WIT. ROAKES, S.L. and NORRIS-TIRRELL, D., 2000. Community Service Learning in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), pp. 100-110. ROBBINS, E., SMITH, M.K., HACK, G.A. and LEE, T.F., 1981. The Client in Architectural Education: Three Interviews at M.I.T. Journal of Architectural Education, 35(1), pp. 32-35. ROBERTS, A., 2007. CEBE Briefng Guide Series, No.10: Giving Effective Feedback to Students in Architecture and Landscape Architecture. London: CEBE. ROBERTS, A., 2004. Problem Based Learning and the Design Studio. CEBE Transactions, 1(3), pp. 1-3. ROBINSON, C., 2003. Timothy Hursley [Portfolio]. Places, 15(2), pp. 48-61. ROBINSON, J.W., 1990. Architectural Research: Incorporating Myth and Science. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(1), pp. 20-32. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

ROLFE, G., 2006. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), pp. 304-310. ROMICE, O. and UZZELL, D., 2005. Community Design Studio: a Collaboration of Architects and Psychologists. CEBE Transactions, 2(1), pp. 73-88. ROMNEY, A.K., WELLER, S.C. and BATCHELDER, W.H., 1986. Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), pp. 313-338. ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, 1952. Report of the RIBA Visiting Board upon the School of Architecture, the College of Art and Crafts, Birmingham. London: RIBA. ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, nd, Why use an architect. Available: http:// www.architecture.com/UseAnArchitect/WhyUseAnArchitect/WhyUseAnArchitect.aspx [4/8/2009, 2009]. RUBBO, A., 2001. Values and Architectural Education. Architectural Theory Review, 6(2), pp. 65-80. RUEDI, K., 1998. Bauhaus dreamhouse : architectural education in the age of image reproduction PhD edn. London: University College London. RUEDI, K., 1998. Review: A Commentary on Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 51(3), pp. 148-152. RURAL STUDIO, 2011-last update, Rural Studio : Auburn University [Auburn University], [Online]. Available: http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx?path=Gallery %2fPurpose%2fHistory%2f [9/19, 2011]. SACHS, A., 1999. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Stuckness' in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 195-209. SADLER, S., 2002. Archigram's invisible university. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 6(03), pp. 247. SALAMA, A., 2008. A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education. http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=10329 edn. ArchnetIJAR. SALAMA, A., 2007. A Structured Content and A Rigorous Process Meet in Studio Pedagogy. In: A. SALAMA and N. WILKINSON, eds, Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons For the Future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press, pp. 153-166. SALAMA, A., O'REILLY, W. and NOSCHIS, K., eds, 2002. Architectural Education Today: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Lausanne: Comportements. SALAMA, A. and WILKINSON, N., eds, 2007. Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons For the Future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press. SANDEFUR, R.L. and SELBIN, J., The Clinic Effect. Clinical Law Review, Vol.16, p.57, 2009, . Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

SANOFF, H., 2003. Three Decades of Design and Community. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. SAPSFORD, R. and JUPP, V., eds, 1996. Data collection and analysis. London: Sage. SARA, R., 2006. CEBE Briefing Guide Series, No.8: Live Project Good Practice: A Guide for theImplementation of Live Projects. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. SARA, R., 2004. Between studio and street : the role of the live project in architectural education, University of Sheffield. SARA, R., 2004. Does the Live Project have a future in architectural education. Studio Culture 2: Touching the Real, 15th-16th December (trigger paper). SARA, R., 2000. Introducing clients and users to the studio project : a case study of a 'live' project. In: D. NICOL and S. PILLING, eds, Changing Architectural Education. London: E & FN Spon, pp. 77-83. SARA, R. and PARNELL, R., 2004. CEBE Briefing Guide Series, No.3: The review process. London: CEBE. SARKIS, H., 2009. Alternative A. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 93-94. SCARPA, L., 1999. Portable Construction Training Center: A Case Study in Design/Build Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(1), pp. 36-38. SCHAIK, L.V., 2005. Mastering Architecture : Becoming a Creative Innovator in Practice. Australia: John Wiley & Sons. SCHÖN, D., 1991. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice. New York: Teachers Press: Columbia University. SCHÖN, D., 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SCHÖN, D., 1985. The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications. SCHÖN, D., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. SCHOSTAK, J.F., 2002. Understanding, designing and conducting qualitative research in education. Buckingham: Open University Press. SCHRATZ, M., ed, 1993. Qualitative voices in educational research. London: Falmer Press. SCHWART, E.G., 1995. Crossing Borders/Shifting Paradigms: Multiculturalism and Children's Literature. Harvard Educational Review, (Winter),. SEAMAN, J., 2008. Experience, Reflect, Critique: The End of the "Learning Cycles" Era. The Journal of Experiential Education, 31(1), pp. 3.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

SEGLEN, P. O., 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), pp. 497. SEGREST, R., 1997. The Architecture of Architectural Education. Assemblage, (33), pp. 76-79. SEIBERT, K.W., 1999. Reflection-in-action: Tools for cultivating on-the-job learning conditions. Organizational dynamics, 27(3), pp. 54-65. SEIFER, S.D., HERMANNS, K. and LEWIS, J., eds, 2000. Creating community-responsive physicians: concepts and models for service-learning in medical education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. SENNETT, R., 2009. The Craftsman. London: Penguin. SHAW, R. and JACKSON, T.G., eds, 1892. Architecture - a profession or an art. London: John Murray. SHEPHERD, J., 1/30, 2007-last update, A difficult patch [The Guardian], [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/jan/30/researchassessmentexercise.research [11/16, 2011]. SHERIDAN, D., 2009. 'Building Initiative' in Belfast. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 13(02), pp. 151-162. SHERROD, L.R., 1998. The Common Pursuits of Modern Philanthropy and the Proposed Outreach University. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 397-417. SHOR, I., 2009. What is Critical Literacy? In: A. DARDER, M.P. BALTODANO and R.D. TORRES, eds, The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second Edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 282-304. SHOR, I., 1999. What is Critical Literacy. In: I. SHOR and C. PARI, eds, Critical literacy in action: writing words, changing worlds. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook/Heinemann, . SHULMAN, L.S., 2005. Pedagogies of Uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), pp. 18-25. SHULMAN, L.S., 2005. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), pp. 52-59. SILVER-ISENSTADT, A. and UBEL, P.A., 1999. Erosion in Medical Students' Attitudes About Telling Patients They Are Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(8), pp. 481-487. SIMPSON, D.J., JACKSON, M.J.B. and AYCOCK, J.C., eds, 2005. John Dewey and the Art of Teaching. 1st edn. London: Sage. SLETTO, B., 2010. Educating Reflective Practitioners: Learning to Embrace the Unexpected through Service Learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(4), pp. 403-415. SMALL, S.A. and BOGENSCHNEIDER, K., 1998. Toward a Scholarship of Relevance. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 255-274. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

100

SMITH, A., July 2004, 2004-last update, Architectural Education: A Selective Bibliography [Architectural Association], [Online]. Available: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/library/documents/ education.pdf [9/12, 2011]. SMITH, J., 1962. The schools in transition. Architect & Building News, (14 February), pp. 239-244. SMITH, J., 1962. Schools of Architecture - 6 - Cambridge. Architect & Building News, (3 January), pp. 17-24. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 1 - Edinburgh. Architect & Building News, (18 January), pp. 73-82. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 10 - Liverpool. Architect & Building News, (15 November), pp. 725-732. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 11 - Glasgow. Architect & Building News, (13 December), pp. 899-906. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 2 - Birmingham. Architect & Building News, (22 February), pp. 257-263. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 3 - Nottingham. Architect & Building News, (22 March), pp. 387-393. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 4 - Leicester. Architect & Building News, (12 April), pp. 475-482. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 5 - Kingston-upon-Thames. Architect & Building News, (10 May), pp. 613-620. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 6 - Cardiff. Architect & Building News, (14 June), pp. 795-802. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 7 - Bristol. Architect & Building News, (26 July), pp. 133-140. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 8 - Canterbury. Architect & Building News, (20 September), pp. 435-442. SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 9 - Kingston-upon-Hull. Architect & Building News, (25 October), pp. 617-624. SMITH, J., 1958. The Schools. Architecture and Building, (February), pp. 42-69. SMITH, M.K., 2001-last update, David A. Kolb on experiential learning [the encyclopedia of informal education], [Online]. Available: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm [1/11, 2011].

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

101

SMITH, M.K., 9/3, 2009-last update, Donald Schon (Schรถn): learning, reflection and change [the encyclopedia of informal education], [Online]. Available: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/etschon.htm [1/19, 2011]. SNODGRASS, A., 2000. On 'Theorising Architectural Education'. Architectural Theory Review, 5(2), pp. 89-93. SPARKES, A.C., 2001. Myth 94: Qualitative Health Researchers will Agree about Validity. Qualitative health research, 11(4), pp. 538-552. STACEY, M., 2009. Nottingham students put this South African community on a learning curve. BD, (1873), pp. 14-15. STANLEY MORGAN, R., 1961. USCON - Upper School Conglomerate demonstration frame. Architects Journal, (20 September), pp. 413-414. STANSFIELD SMITH, C., 1999. Architecture education for the 21st century : RIBA review of architectural education. London: RIBA. STAVENGA DE JONG, JAN A., WIERSTRA, R.F.A. and HERMANUSSEN, J., March 2006. An exploration of the relationship between academic and experiential learning approaches in vocational education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 155-169(15). STEVENS, G., 1998. The favored circle : the social foundations of architectural distinction. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. STUNKEL, K.R., 1998. The lecture: A powerful tool for intellectual liberation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(42), pp. A52. TAMAS, A., 25 April 2011, 2011-last update, Interview: Robert Venturi & Denise Scott Brown [ArchDaily], [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/130389/interview-robert-venturidenise-scott-brown-by-andrea-tamas/ [4/25, 2011]. TAYLOR, P.V., 1993. The Texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham: Open University Press. TAYLOR, H., 1991. The Systematic Training Model: Corn Circles in Search of a Spaceship? Management Learning, 22(4), pp. 258-278. THACKARA, J., March 31, 2009-last update, Make Sense, Not Stuff. Available: http:// www.doorsofperception.com/archives/BLOG.thackara.cumulus.TEXT-FINAL.pdf [October 20, 2009]. THE EDITORS, 1958. Theme for the Oxford Conference. Architects Journal, (3 April), pp. 487. THE LABOUR PARTY, 2001-last update, Labour Party General Election Manifesto. Available: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml [1 June, 2011]. THE LABOUR PARTY, 1997-last update, Labour Party General Election Manifesto. Available: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml [1 June, 2011]. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

102

THOMAS MITCHELL, C., 1995. Action, perception, and the realization of design. Design Studies, 16(1), pp. 4-28. THOMAS, K.L., ed, 2007. Material Matters. Abingdon: Routledge. THOMAS, S. and BUSBY, S., 2003. Do industry collaborative projects enhance studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning? Education + Training, 45(4), pp. 226-235. THOMAS, G. and JAMES, D., 2006. Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), pp. 767. TILL, J., 2009. Architecture Depends. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. TILL, J., 2009. Architecture is not architecture is not architecture is not architecture. Conference paper edn. London: RIBA. TILL, J., 2005. Lost Judgement. In: E. HARDER, ed, EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in architectural education. 1st edn. Copenhagen: EAAE, pp. 164-181. TILL, J., 2003. Strong Doubt. Designs on diversity exhibition catalogue. London: Stephen Lawrence Gallery, . TODD, C.M., EBATA, A.T. and HUGHES JR., R., 1998. Making University and Community Collaborations Work. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 231-253. TOKER, Z., 2007. Recent trends in community design: the eminence of participation. Design Studies, 28(3), pp. 309. TOURNIKIOTIS, P., 2001. The historiography of modern architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT. TROMBLEY, S., 1983. The Oxford Conference and after : an interview with Elizabeth Layton. Architectural Education, (1), pp. 89-97. TSANG, E., 2007. Introduction. In: E. TSANG, ed, Projects That Matter: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Engineering. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 1-12. UDALL, J., 2006. Architecture by Other Means. M Architecture edn. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. UK GOVERNMENT, 1992. Further and Higher Education Act (1992). London: Office of Public Sector Information. UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, , Live Projects. Available: http:// www.liveprojects.org/ [4/22/2009, 2009]. VERMEULEN, T. and VAN DEN AKKER, R., 2010. Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2. VERNON, D.T.A., 1995. Attitudes and Opinions of Faculty Tutors about Problem-based Learning. Academic Medicine, 70(3), pp. 216-223. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

103

VILJOEN, A. and HOSKYNS, T., 2007. For Real: a review of the extend of 'live practice' within 3D design education in the UK and its potential contribution to curriculum development within the ADM Subject Area. Report for the Art Design and Media - Higher Education Academy Learning and Teaching Project. University of Brighton: School of Architecture and Design. VON PRONDZYNSKI, F., 2011. Hunt fails to deliver on great expectations. Irish Times, . VON PRONDZYNSKI, F., 2011. In bonny Scotland, the challenges are the same and the solutions hard to see. Irish Times, . WALES, B., 2006. Small Built Works Project. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(2), pp. 18-24. WALSH, E., 2011. Finding the muscle to fix our failing education system. Irish Times, . WARD, A., 1990. Ideology, culture and the design studio. Design Studies, 11(1), pp. 10-16. WARD, A., 1991. Biculturalism and Community: A Transformative Model for Design Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 90-109. WASS, V., JONES, R. and VAN DER VLEUTEN, C., 2001. Standardized or real patients to test clinical competence? The long case revisited. Medical education, 35(4), pp. 321-325. WASS, V. and VAN DER VLEUTEN, C., 2004. The long case. Medical education, 38(11), pp. 1176-1180. WATT, K. and COTTRELL, D., 2006. Grounding the curriculum: learning from live projects in architectural education. International Journal of Learning, 13, pp. 97-104. WEBSTER, H., 2008. Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), pp. 63-74. WEBSTER, H., 2004. Facilitating critically reflective learning: excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), pp. 101. WEINTHAL, L., 2006. House Lab. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(2), pp. 25-28. WEISMAN, L.K., 1994. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment Chicago: University of Illinois Press. WEISMAN, L.K., CERULLI, C. and KOSSAK, F., 2009. ‘Educator, Activist, Politician’. Field, 3(1), pp. 7-22. WELSCH, J. and YOUSMAN, B., 5 December, 2006-last update, Culture, Politics & Pedagogy: A Conversation w/ Henry Giroux [Media Education Foundation], [Online]. Available: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgdVCnTTqXA [07/03, 2012]. WESTFALL, C.W., 2008. Why the Orders Belong in Studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(4), pp. 95-107. Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

104

WIGLEY, M., 1991. Prosthetic Theory: The Disciplining of Architecture. Assemblage, (15), pp. 7-29. WILSON, M.A., 1996. THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(1), pp. 33. WINK, J., 2000. Critical pedagogy: notes from the real world. Second edn. Longman. WINNER, S., 2001. Beyond Skills Training. Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1844. WINTERBOTTOM, D., 2002. Landscape Journal, 21(1), pp. 201-213. WOLF, H., 1987. Observations on Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(2), pp. 91-93. WOOD, A. and OXLEY, D., 2007. Learning through Collaboration, an Industry/School of Architecture Partnership. CEBE Transactions, 4(1), pp. 76-88. WYKURZ, G. and KELLY, D., 2002. Developing the role of patients as teachers: literature review. BMJ, 325(7368), pp. 818-821. YANAR, A., 1999. The silenced complexity of architectural design studio tradition : pedagogy, epistemology and the question of power. PhD edn. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. YENTIS, S.M., 2005. The use of patients for learning and maintaining practical skills. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, pp. 299-302. YIN, R.K., 1989. Case study research : design and methods. London: Sage. YOUNG, W., 1968. Address to the 100th Convention of the American Institute of Architects. Portland, Oregon: AIA. ZIEBLAND, S. and MCPHERSON, A., 2006. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Medical education, 40(5), pp. 405-414.

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

105