Architectural Experiment

Sam Hayes, 33241624 BA (Hons) Architecture, Year 3 PDP - Architecture Experiment

Can opinions of Architecture be influenced by visiting international case studies?

1

Introduction "Architecture is that great living, creative spirit which from generation to generation, from age to age, proceeds, persists, creates, according to the nature of man, and his circumstances as they change. That is really architecture." Frank Lloyd Wright Architecture is a key aspect of any civilisation, but is the public aware of the significant influence that Architecture has. Architecture can physically and mentally influence users in several ways. For example:      

Lighting Colour Movement Dynamics Vistas Logistics

    

Acoustics Historical Material association Heating Geometry/proportions etc...

By educating the public of the impact of Architecture, we can reduce the ignorance of Architecture and encourage more comprehensive holistic knowledge. Through further distribution of knowledge, can the design industry teach the public to further appreciate both the complexity and beauty that Architecture can deliver?

Can opinions of Architecture be influenced by visiting international case studies?

It was during a European summer vacation in 2011 that I first posed the question ‘whether opinions of Architecture could be influenced by visiting international case studies.’ Myself and three friends travelled around Europe for one month, each with different aspirations as to how the adventure would stimulate us. We each had differing levels of interest towards architecture.

We travelled to places with iconic landmark Architecture and throughout the trip I noticed some architectural case studies intrigued some of my companions. If this investigation results in a positive reaction to the impact that Architecture can deliver, then to provoke better Architecture, we need to develop public awareness. I plan to conduct a qualitative review designed for the public and design industry.

Overview details of proposal

2



To design a questionnaire that would provide statistical evidence based upon opinions of several international case studies.



A four week international study trip during the summer of 2011.



To explore both vernacular and modern architecture across England, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Holland.



To Evaluate and analyse changes within peoples’ opinions of individual pieces, styles or types of architecture.



To understand the significance of changes within the participants’ opinions and in turn to re-invest those opinions into the design process to generate better holistic Architecture.



A group of four individuals, including myself, each with respectively different levels of knowledge and interest within the field of architecture will participate. This will provide a range of knowledge to be more reflective of the general public. Listed below is the participants’ general architecture awareness.

Participant 1= a lot

Participant 2= little

Participant 3= very little

participant 4= none

Research paradigm Hypothesis I primarily focussed on the educational side of foreign Architecture. With increased knowledge of Architecture, I predict that participants’ opinions of Architecture will be improved as they understand and begin to appreciate the potential and realisation of architectural beauty.

Case study analysis London – St. Mary’s Axe vs. Buckingham Palace Barcelona - Casa Mila vs. Barcelona Pavilion Milan - Milan Cathedral vs. The Respira building Stuttgart - Mercedes Benz Museum vs. Wissennof Museum/Estate Amsterdam - Nemo Museum vs. ARCAM

Research assumptions 1. I plan to develop knowledge of architecture within the public domain by encouraging the design industry to re-educate themselves and other people.

2. The public have little, if any, general understanding of architecture and its inherent influence.

3. Whether or not conscious and subconscious reactions can be directly influenced.

4. Publish findings at architectural places   3

Case studies (buildings) Journals



Internet

Trustworthiness To provide trustworthiness, the research is required to meet five criteria: Credibility Provide necessary information to present a true picture of the study and ensure the intentions are made clear.

To increase the credibility of the study, the title needs to be clear and concise. This can be done be refining the experiment to provide the necessary information, so the reader understands the topic before reading further.

Using a simple precise abstract that is brief yet descriptive to show the intentions of the study (Shenton, 2006)

Transferability It is important to ensure that the success of this study can be applied to multiple situations. This can be done by providing simple research, evaluation and analysis techniques. The study could be revised to use national case studies only and therefore can be adapted to suit necessary research scales.

By understanding the methodology and providing detailed data collection, recruitment of participants, evaluation and analysis, this study could be repeated within different countries and by different professions within the design industry, e.g. landscape architects.

Dependability The dependability of the results is based upon two main factors 1. To ensure that if the experiment was to be repeated, no anomalies would occur and the study would confirm similar results.

2. To provide enough detail within each section to ensure the study can be repeated.

Confirmability To ensure the experiment’s findings resemble the impact and opinion of the participants without any influence or agenda by the researcher. To reduce any bias from the researcher, the findings will be solely based upon the opinions of the participants and exclude all researcher preferences.

Triangulation To help ensure honesty from the participants the option to not answer any question will be allowed. This provides people with the ability to avoid any particular question ensuring they are not forced into picking a response which could provide a false outcome.

4

Demographics

Participant 1

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Age

19

22

19

20

Gender

Male

Female

Male

Male

Profession

Architecture student

Physiotherapy student

Maths student

Retail management

Residence

Leeds

Manchester

Newcastle

Middlesbrough

Interests

Architecture Music Computers

Animals Playing the piano Gym

Socialising Accountancy Football

Cricket Fashion Cars

Consent and confidentiality I need individual consent to publish their findings base on their opinions. Confidentiality will be achieved by assigning each participant a number to maintain their anonymity. No personal details will be collected or displayed within this architectural experiment.

Data collection 1. Qualitative research questionnaire

Conduct data collection Conduct the data collection within a specific time limit and produce methodological notes for any decisionmaking procedure, whilst allowing participants to further comment about each question (with relevance).

5

Appendix I - Qualitative research questionnaire

Questionnaire In your opinion, please circle the answer for the following questions. You do not have to answer every question and if unsure of the question or how to answer please leave blank:

Before the trip: 1) How much did you know about Architecture?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

2) How interested were you in Architecture?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

3) How much did you expect to learn about Architecture, and why?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

During the trip: 4) How significant was the influence of Architecture?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

5) How interested were you in learning about Architecture?

1 Nothing

6

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

6) How much did you learn about Architecture?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

7) Did you notice how individual countries adopted different attitudes towards Architecture? (Example, Country X encouraged and heavily promoted Architecture) 1

2

3

4

5

Never

6

7

8

9

10

Sometimes

Always

8) During your time in London what was your initial opinion of Case study No.1 (St Mary’s Axe, “Gherkin”) and why?

1 Extremely Disliked

2

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10

9) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1

2

3

4

5

Nothing

6

Some

A lot

10) After learning about and visiting Case Study No.1, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why?

1 Extremely Disliked

7

2

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

11) During your time in London what was your initial opinion of Case study No.2 (Buckingham Palace) and why?

1 Extremely Disliked

2

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

12) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

13) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.2, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

14) During your time in Barcelona what was your initial opinion of Case study No.3 (Casa Mila) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

15) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing 8

2

3

4

5 Some

6

16) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.3, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

17) During your time in Barcelona what was your initial opinion of Case study No.4 (Barcelona Pavilion) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5

6 Neutral

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

18) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

19) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.4, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5

6 Neutral

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

9

10 Extremely Like

20) During your time in Milan what was your initial opinion of Case study No.5 (Milan Pavilion) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked 9

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

21) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

22) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.5, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

23) During your time in Milan what was your initial opinion of Case study No.6 (The Respira Building) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

24) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

25) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.6, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

10

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

26) During your time in Stuttgart what was your initial opinion of Case study No.7 (Mercedes Benz Museum) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

27) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

28) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.7, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

29) During your time in Stuttgart what was your initial opinion of Case study No.8 (The Wissenhof Estate) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

30) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing 11

2

3

4

5 Some

6

31) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.8, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

32) During your time in Amsterdamwhat was your initial opinion of Case study No.9 (The Science Center NEMO) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

7

8

9

10 A lot

33) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

34) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.9, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

35) During your time in Amsterdamwhat was your initial opinion of Case study No.10 (The ARCAM Building) and why?

1 2 Extremely Disliked

12

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

36) How much do you feel you learnt about this case study?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

37) After learning and experiencing elements of Case Study No.10, what was your revised opinion (if any) and why??

1 2 Extremely Disliked

3

4

5 Neutral

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely Liked

After the trip: 38) How much do you think you now know about Architecture?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

6

7

8

9

10 A lot

7

8

9

10 A lot

39) How interested are you in Architecture now?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

40) How much did you learn about Architecture, and why?

1 Nothing

2

3

4

5 Some

6

41) Do you think there has been any change in your opinion of Architecture after experiencing and learning about the 10 international case studies, and is so why?

1 Nothing 13

2

3

4

5 Some

6

7

8

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

9

10 A lot

Collected data Question Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

14

Participant 1 7 10 7 8 9 8 7 9 10 10 6 3 6 8 1 8 9 7 9 5 3 5 7 1 6 8 10 10 4 10 5 2 6 3 10 3 10 8 10 9 6

Participant 2 1 5 6 8 5 6 6 6 5 7 3 2 3 2 1 2 7 8 8 5 6 7 4 10 6 9 9 10 4 8 4 6 9 6 8 10 10 4 6 7 8

Participant 3 2 4 5 4 7 4 6 7 4 8 7 5 7 6 2 6 3 1 3 7 6 7 4 5 6 8 6 9 4 6 7 5 5 6 7 5 6 6 6 6 7

Participant 4 3 1 3 6 2 4 1 5 5 7 7 1 8 6 1 6 3 4 3 5 1 5 7 6 8 6 8 8 4 6 3 6 7 6 9 6 9 7 2 4 6

Additional Notes Question Number 2

3

7

Participant 1 I like to understand the effects and influences architecture can have.

Case studies throughout several with broaden my architectural knowledge Germany had heavily invested in modernistic styles of Architecture unlike France which has adopted a more classical tradition.

Participant 2

Participant 3 I’m open to new concepts and enjoy learning about everything I anticipated learning new facts

The historic influence of architecture in Barcelona was fascinating

8

The expression and beauty of the structure was cool I respected it’s ecological principles and systems Boring shapes are too simple Awe of any classical style building is boring and too repetitive

9

17

Boring shapes are too simple Awe of any classical style building is boring and too repetitive

20

23 25

Simple yet beautiful Could benefit from a specified function

27

33

38

15

Concept was cool but function limits target market I learnt about the vernacular architecture and how it worked with respective climates

Participant 4

Distinct and interesting looking building Interesting topic

Distinct and interesting looking building Interesting topic

The meaning and conceptual meaning behind some kind

Building and function are both really interesting

Interpretation of graphs Thematic coding will be used to decipher any correlations or patterns within the graphs, charts and tables.

Thematic correlations and key identifications    

16

Similar correlation between the lack of learning with case studies 2-6 and the high extensive learning with case studies 7-10 Everyone learnt at least something about each case with a wide fluctuating range for every person.

The last 5 case studies had a much greater learning average. Those case studies all in Germany and Amsterdam and could be influenced by the significance those countries place upon architecture.

Participants 1 and 2 experienced maximum knowledge learnt at least twice whilst no-one ever learnt nothing.

Thematic correlations and key identifications    

17

Across the four patients there was a great range of both initial and resultant interest.

Everyone who could improve their interest did so by at least 10%.

The average increase was approximately 15%.

This graph proves case studies can increase a range of people’s opinions of architecture and their resultant interest in them.

Thematic correlations and key identifications   

18

All participants learnt more than they expected too.

Participant 1 learnt more than the others, this could be based on initial knowledge, or lack thereof.

All participants learnt more than 10% more than they thought and with a overall average of some-a lot overall.

Thematic correlations and key identifications    

19

Averages increased dramatically, all participants had a lot of increased knowledge within architecture after visiting the case studies.

Participant 1 gained less knowledge than others. This could be based on the greater initial knowledge.

Participant 2 moved from almost no knowledge to some and combined with interests is a great increase.

The new average knowledge was greater than average, based on some being a neutral knowledge level.

20

 

Slight increase of overall opinion after learning about the collative case studies.

The new opinion increased for all but one case study.

 

Increased opinion of each case study and a large range of increases too.

Approximate average increase of 10%

m

  

Two participents included this one had a decreased opinion of case study 10.

Approximate average increase of 8% All result were placed in 50% of the maximum range and almost universally more positive afterwards



Participant 4 has the largest variation of opinions. Could have the most influencing unconscious reactions to different forms.

Approximate average increase of 5

 21

Study limitations        

 



Age of subjects – all similar ages could influence or produce similar opinions.

Relationship of participants – peer pressure to impress or improve to show off to others.

Demographic characteristics – a potential “architectural function” bias with individuals.

Sample size – a small group provides a narrow range of data. The greater the variety of the group, the better.

Researcher bias – encouraging and forcing architecture upon the participants unknowingly. They may feel the need to enjoy architecture more with me.

Case study bias – case study buildings are considered architectural masterpieces Data analysis – potential for human interpretation instead of computer, to help reinforce hypothesis Questionnaire – designed to explore the perceptions and opinions of architecture international case studies and how increased knowledge leads to increased interest. Questions can be interpreted differently by each participant that could lead to incorrect data which would not provide an overall true representation. If an interview was conducted instead, this would ensure that the individual fully understands what you are asking them, which will provide a solid and reliable set of data, as the interviewer can expand on questions to gain a more in-depth answer.

Resources – the capital of conducting an international architectural study may be too expensive to repeat to reinforce the findings.

Time of study – the visiting occurred in the summer of 2011 before the intent of this study was defined.

If I could repeat this study, I would conduct the questionnaire within one month of the case study visits, to allow a reasonable time frame to respond.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2000) claims that to maximise the benefits from a piece of research, the findings need to be disseminated as broadly as possible, to allow access by other researchers and the wider community. Therefore the findings from this research study should be disseminated to all the appropriate audiences who will benefit from reading this study.

Dissemination strategy It is important for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wide audience, because it will be beneficial to certain people in that field of knowledge, especially if the findings strengthen the current evidence of the same topic.

22

Using different medias to distribute the research    

The participants will each receive a copy of the findings to highlight how they helped with the research.

The Design industry will receive internet links and bound journal copies to distribute within lectures to help teach and encourage architecture case study visits.

Architecture students will receive email copies and bound journal copies to increase knowledge.

The Public will gain increased awareness of international architecture by magazines and internet research documents.

Analysis The experimental proved successful as it proved that everyone learnt about each case and increased their interest an average of 15%. All participants learnt more than 10% more than they thought and the new average knowledge was greater than average, based on some being a neutral knowledge level.

With increased knowledge of Architecture the participants’ opinions of Architecture did improve as they begin to question and ultimately understand the principles and effects architecture can portray.

Conclusion The experimental proved extremely beneficial as it reveals a method to improve understanding and deliver the benefits of architecture easier. It shows that visuals and project ideas are helpful but showing people proven successful examples of the concept was incredible effective.

It could now be tested on a larger and scale and help develop the way in which Architecture and the design industry display information.

References Internet Mark Irving. (2011) The Proposal in Qualitative Research, [Internet]. Available from: < http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-1/heath.html> [Accessed on the 8th February 2012].

Books and Journals Shenton, A. K., (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22, pp.63-75.

23