EVIDENCE-BASED URBAN DESIGN
Kristian Vukadinovic
ARTICLE
A new model that reduces normative knowledge and increases positive and evidence-based knowledge
Evidence-based Urban Design A new model that reduces normative knowledge and increases positive and evidence-based knowledge Kristian Vukadinović vukakris@hotmail.com
April, 2014
Abstract – The negative aspects from urbanism being a multidisciplinary field in which an enlightenment model with no coherent methodology prevails and design being not a well established field in academia, ensures the creation of a normative science. In order to embed urbanism and the urban design education within academia a new approach and model is required. The proposed model adopts an evidence based design approach. This way urbanism grows more towards an applied science in education acquiring knowledge from the multiple disciplines in which the creative design process and critical/creative thinking skills are the main academic endeavours. Key words – knowledge, urban design, education model, design process, normative, evidence-based
1 Introduction As in many academia postgraduate students have the option to either leave academia and go into practice or advance their career at universities or knowledge institutions. Being educated as an urban designer may leave you questioned in what way do we fill into this academic field we can advance in. Design is seen as different from other academic principles and the practices are not well integrated into academia (Dorst, 2013). This paper addresses these practices and different areas of knowledge where an urban designer may derive from and which methods of inquiry we have at hand. It searches for an argumentation and model to further integrate the position of urban design in academia. In the discussion the new model will be discussed and at last it is compared with the current education at the TU Delft urbanism
master track and recommendations are given in order to improve the current education.
2 The different science fields and the position of urbanism In order to position urbanism in the different fields of science or academic principles, the question: what constitutes a discipline rises. There seems to be no complete agreement on the criteria which can define them and the disagreement can be viewed from different perspectives (Krishnan, 2009). The philosophical perspective according to Krishnan can be viewed as how knowledge relates to reality and how knowledge is acquired. It is based on Ontological and Epistemological assumptions. In figure 1, the ontological assumption
is concerned with what truth and reality is and
1
the epistemological assumption is concerned with how we can find knowledge in order to know the truth. These assumptions lead to a position which favours a certain methodology in science research (Burrel & Morgan, 1979). In history these assumptions have led to a clash mainly between positivists and interpretivists (Jashapara, 2004). The prior believe in a coherent methodology based on quantitative data in which cause and effect is researched and the latter reject the notion that the valid truth lies exclusively in the scientific method and empiricism. Krishnan (2009) states that the disciplines exist because they create coherence in methods and theories according to agreed rules, but due to different epistemological assumptions the world knowledge is differentiated in branches.
The negative side of these multi discipline fields is that designers generally lack an overarching theory or method of their field (Lawson, 2013) which is hindered by the specialisation of the disciplines and the inequality, which hinders the exchange of knowledge between them (Krishnan, 2009).
3 Model of inquiry and acquisition of knowledge for urban design Urbanism is a trans-disciplinary academic field as noted with resulting negative sides and therefore is taking all the different methods and theories into account. Then how do these theories reach the minds of designers and how do they affect practice? 3.1 models of inquiry
Figure 1: Determinants for research methodology. The image shows the three assumptions which determine the methodology in science research. (Burrel & Morgan, 1979)
A classification in disciplines is a result, in which natural, social, humanities and formal sciences are differentiated. All having their sub-disciplines and their own methods and theories. In order to know which methods and theories apply to urbanism we need to know where it is situated. According to Rocco & Rooij (2010) urbanism is not a pure discipline, but one that derives its knowledge from other disciplines, i.e. the social sciences, the physical sciences and design practice. Design however can be viewed as an applied science and the process a study of the cognitive sciences, the human behaviour in built environments is a study of the social sciences etc.
According to Alexander (2010) theory does affect practice but not in the way many expect. There are two models : the translation and enlightenment model. In the prior abstract knowledge is translated in a systematic method. One may think of Research and Development. The latter informs and enlightens practitioners in the form of a discourse to improve good judgement. The translational model is regarded as more sufficient, but it is almost exclusively used in the natural and physical sciences. In urban planning and design the enlightenment model prevails. This model informs us about the knowledge in theories and brings a relation to theory and practice. In general the question whether a design will work in practice mostly leads to conjectures and it is left that way within the enlightenment model. This model only enlightens us to improve our judgment. But where is this judgment based on? How can we ''know'' a design will work if its use is situated in the future? Then there is the notion that design is not well established as an academic field within academia (Dorst, 2013). Biggs & Buchler (2008) came up with an eight criteria practice based approach which adds four more criteria to design based fields in addition to the four generic academic research criteria as a possible solution. Role of text and image,
Relationship of form and content, function of rhetoric and function of experience. These four criteria however lack the role between design , the gap between its execution and its use. The use constitutes whether it works in practice or not and research about the use (either qualitative or quantitative) may form important input for designers.
the direction of transformation can result in new created knowledge, See Figure 2.
3.2 normative and positive science The negative aspects from urbanism being a multidisciplinary field in which an enlightenment model with no coherent methodology prevails and design being not a well established field in academia, ensures the creation of a normative science. They deal with how to create the best urban environments (Steinø, 2004), rather than questioning what a good urban environment is. Without knowing what a good environment is we cannot aspire to create one. The designs will be based on own subjective beliefs on how society works and will be based on normative contradictory urban design and planning theories. Following the epistemological assumption which searches for the how, we first need to define the ontological assumption, which searches for the what. The creation of descriptive knowledge focusing on the what based on research and the relation between cause and effect can help urbanism become a more distinctive academic field in which knowledge is diffused more efficiently. 3.3 Tacit and explicit knowledge The what and the how can also be reflected in the way humans record knowledge. The knowing how and knowing that (Ryle, 1949) and the equivalent tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967). Tacit knowledge in an urban design profession can mainly be present in the design process. It is a process which one can hardly explain extensively by only use of words. It is embodied knowledge which links to ones intelligence (Ryle, 1949). Explicit knowledge in an urban design profession is articulated knowledge and as mentioned before derives itself from multiple science fields. According to Nonaka (1991), a transformation process between tacit and explicit knowledge can occur and depending on
Figure 3: Nonaka’s spiral of knowledge. The diagram show the transition possibilities of tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991)
Using explicit knowledge in the design process deriving from different science fields embodies this knowledge creating tacit knowledge and crystallises itself in a design according to the internalisation process. Then where does this explicit knowledge come from and where do we need to search in the vast amount of stored knowledge? First, setting objectives for each design makes us question what the objectives mean and how criteria can be applied to them and eventually be met. An objective for example may be, how to create creative learning environments in education, which in the upcoming example is positioned within an architectural and/or interior design project. There have been many researchers who tried to look for characteristics of creative learning environments. Davies et al. (2012) made an systematic review using recent empirical studies. One of those found characteristics are flexible physical environments and the availability of resources/materials. Once knowing what the characteristics are, designers can build on this information and search for how to create these environments within his/her design process. Going towards evidence-based design will most likely enrich the needs of people and thereby their lives, due to understanding their behaviour and needs. 3.4 Moving from how we think good urban design should be accomplished to what the users imply in a model using evidencebased design
It is not enough to adopt a broad definition of objectives. Without an understanding of how urban life interacts with the space of the city (Steinø, 2004). This is where a new model starts and which is depicted in Figure 3.
knowing this explicit knowledge it can be applied in the design process, in which this explicit knowledge is internalised into tacit knowledge. The critical thinking skills of the designer filter out and select the applicable knowledge. The creative thinking skills are used for searching for the how and are concerned with finding the best and innovative solution. The output is both an image and a text. The design is the embodied tacit knowledge and the text is aiming for a rhetoric on used knowledge in which the explicit knowledge is present. Both lead to an executed design. This design is evaluated and researched. The used explicit knowledge, objectives and design process are tested against the result, which leads to new knowledge and is based on learning from experience rather than believing in your experience. The model adopts an evidence based design approach. According to UK Construction Research and Innovation Strategy (Pearce, 2003) Good design contributes to physical and mental health, a sense of identity, social relationships, reduced crime and higher productivity. But in order to adopt it Lawson (2013) foresees a fundamental change in the nature of the design process.
4 Discussion Figure 3: The user oriented design model. The flow chart shows the evidence-based design approach in which objectives and descriptive knowledge are input for the design process and beliefs in which normative knowledge follows is discarded. Source: own image
Designers in the current situation are designing according to belief, which is based on normative knowledge which leads to utopian thinking and fails to understand the social needs of humans. The model therefore replaces beliefs by objectives, which ideally should focus on building for society. In order to apply the objectives in the design we need to know the what. What is good design following the objective? This question is answered through looking in the evidences of the multiple science disciplines urbanism derives from. Structuring, surveying and summarising available research in a form that can be used in design (Lawson, 2013) is a prerequisite for the efficient transfer of explicit knowledge. Once
The current educational system is based on learning by doing. This is effective in creating tacit knowledge about the design process, but it is an ineffective system in acquiring explicit knowledge. Combining learning by doing and learning by knowing increases the internalisation process. There should be more emphasis on the Know-That and letting the student find a creative KnowHow solution. This may solve what Lawson (2013) stated as that most designers are not well educated in terms of research methods. He advocates the combination of design knowledge and scientific knowledge. Hillier (2007) also discusses and disfavours this gap which is noticeable between urban designers and urban planners and is caused by compartmentalisation of the disciplines. The current system also encourages the enlightenment model. Alexander (2010) states that the enlightenment model ''informs good practice by enlightening practitioners to
improve their judgement (p. 100)''. Normative science does not lead to better judgement but to new design theory paradigms based on beliefs which designers adhere to. With this system we are prone to failures in understanding human needs and behaviours, which history has shown us. Hillier (2007) linked this slow progress of understanding with the process of trial and error in urban design, resulting in failures in urban developments. According to Biggs & Buchler (2008) the addition of four new criteria to design research will solve the circularity argumentation problem, which according to Turner (2010) is one of the arguments normativists end up with. However, the criteria are more issues which need to be solved rather than criteria. The role of text and image indeed needs clarification, as is the relationship between form and content, and rhetoric. An image is complex and once created by humans in form of a design it is embodied into a tacit knowledge artefact. In order for others to immediately understand the design it should be accompanied with a rhetoric on objectives and with the used knowledge/evidence in the design process. This explicit knowledge makes the design evaluable and less subjective. Another criterion Biggs & Buchler (2008) state is that the function of experience is problematic due to its philosophical subjectivity, but that it is considered as the most important contribution. In the proposed model experience in the form of belief is reduced as much as possible. Experience is based on evaluated and tested knowledge in order to transfer this knowledge to the field of urbanism. These tested precedents and their use is one of the most enduring and central features of designing (Lawson, 2013). Failing in learning from mistakes through history and failing in the extraction of successful design principles meeting human needs, will ensure that the urban design field will continue to spin in ignorance.
5 Conclusions The methods and theories in urban design are dispersed over disciplines which does not create a coherence method. This is noticeable in the current education. With the enlightenment model we will keep the
normative and design based on belief and intuition focus. The translation model fails because designers are hardly educated according to this model. Therefore a combination of an evidence-based design approach and an enlightenment model is proposed. We should be enlightened to create creative solutions which are based on research from different disciplines to match with the needs of humans. We need to know the what or else we will fall into a normative field which makes assumptions based on belief. The rhetoric we adopt can have positive influence on society when scientific evidences from the social sciences are used. Once knowing society and what they regard as good urban form we can build for society. In order for this model to work academia need to come to an agreement in using a somewhat same approach and educating students according to its principles. We can grow more towards an applied science in education acquiring knowledge from the multiple disciplines in which the creative design process and critical/creative thinking skills are the main academic endeavours.
6 Recommendations and/or further research The paper compared the status quo in the field as well as in the education with the new model which has been argued. It comes with the following recommendations for design education in urbanism. 1. Teach students in noticing when they act according to beliefs which lead to normative arguments and instead teach to replace them with objectives. 2. Teach a method in which objectives can be translated in criteria. 3. Provide teaching in literature research and precedent research skills to search what can meet the objectives. 4. Improve critical and creative thinking to ensure a student is able to find a solution to how to meet the objectives in combination with the research. 5. Emphasize the difference between text and image and that text is the rhetoric in the form of explicit knowledge needed to evaluate the result.
The model being highly normative and simplified itself needs further research on its effectiveness and whether the needs of humans will be indeed better met.
7 References ALEXANDER, E.R. 2010. Introduction: does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how?, Planning Theory, 9, (2), pages 99-107. BIGGS, M. & BÜCHLER, D. 2008. Eight criteria for practice-based research in the creative and cultural industries, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 7(1), pages 5-18 BURREL, G. & MORGAN, M. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, London, Heinemann DAVIES, D., JINDAL-SNAPE, D., COLLIER, C., DIGBY, R., HAY, P., HOWE, A. 2012. Creative learning environments in education – A systematic literature review, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, pages 80-91. DORST, K. 2013. Inaugural lecture on academic design, Eindhoven University of Technology HILLIER, B. 2007. Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture, University of Cambridge, Press Syndicate JASHAPARA, A. 2004. Knowledge management An integrated approach, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited. KRISHNAN, A. 2009. What are academic disciplines? ; Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity debate, University of Southampton, National centre for research methods LAWSON, B. 2013. Design and the Evidence, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, pages 30-37. NONAKA, I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, 69, pages 96-104. POLANYI, M. 1967. The tacit dimension, New York, Doubleday. ROCCO, R. & ROOIJ, R. 2010, Educating the critical urban planner and designer; a didactical experience in an area of practice. Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology RYLE, G. 1949. The concept of mind, London, Hutcheson. STEINØ, N. 2004. Urban design and planning: One object - Two theoretical realms, Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 2004, 2, pages 63-85. TURNER, S.P. 2010. Explaining the normative, Cambridge, Polity Press.