A critique of the live projectJames Benedict Brown, BA (Hons) M.Arch

(1)

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 Queen’s University Belfast

Volume 2: Appendices

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

(2)

Table of contents

Appendix 1 Journal of Education in the Built Environment (JEBE) 1(1)- 6(1) literature search 2 Appendix 2 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) 53(1) - 63(1) literature search 3

Appendix 3 Respondent information sheet 6

Appendix 4 Respondent consent form 7

Appendix 5 Respondent profiles 8

Appendix 6 Respondents’ institution profiles 11

Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule 13

Appendix 8 Comparison of pilot and revised interview schedules 27

Appendix 9 Concepts 34

Appendix 10 Sample coded transcript 1 39

Appendix 11 Sample coded transcript 2 58

Appendix 12 Sample concept notebook pages 75

Appendix 13 Bibliography 77

(3)

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 No Yes

live project The Pedagogy of the Planning Studio:

A View from Down Under

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

4(1) Yes No 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 No Yes

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com 2

(4)

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

community Public Participation: Technology and Democracy

Al-Kodmany, Kheir 53(4) No Yes Yes

design-build A Museum of Living Architecture Alread, Jason; Leslie, Thomas 61(2) No - - design-build Building Designs for Living: Studio

804 University of Kansas

Ascher-Barnstone, Deborah 55(3) Yes Yes No

design-build Navy Demonstration Project Barnstone, Robert V. 60(2) Yes Yes Yes

community Figure/Fabric: Process/Production Bertomen, Michele 54(4) Yes Yes No

design-build (Infra)Structural Landscapes: A Mail-Slot System

Better, Hansy; Cosmas, Michael;

Piermarini, Anthony J.

55(3) No Yes Yes

design-build (Un)Intended Discoveries Boza, Luis Eduardo 60(2) No Yes Yes

design-build Design in Movement: The Prospects of Interdisciplinary Design

Bronet, Frances; Schumacher, John 53(2) No - -

community For Want of Wind Cavanagh, Ted; Kroeker, Richard;

Mullin, Roger

58(4) Yes Yes Yes

community, community design

Translations Between Design Research and Scholarship

Chi, Lily 61(1) No - -

design-build Translation and Materiality: The Space of Invention Between Designing and Building

Chun, Alice; Mcdonald, Timothy 55(3) Yes No Yes

community The Ideal of Community and Its Counterfeit Construction

Clarke, Paul Walker 58(3) No - -

community Insurgent Architecture: An Alternative Approach to Design- Build

Corser, Robert; Gore, Nils 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

community Joint Maneuvers Creimer, Matias 60(2) No No Yes

design-build No Compromise Dunay, Robert; Wheeler, Joseph;

Schubert, Robert

60(2) No No Yes

community Studio South Erdman, Jori 59(4) Yes No Yes

design-build Designing / Building / Learning Erdman, Jori; Weddle, Robert 55(3) Yes No Yes design-build From Kaolin to Kevlar: Emerging

Materials for Inventing New Architecture

Fernandez, John 58(1) No No Yes

(5)

design-build Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology

Guy, Simon; Farmer, Graham 54(3) No - -

community Location, Location, Location:

Gender and the Archaeology of Urban Settlement

Haar, Sharon 55(3) No - -

community Design as Research Hinson, David 61(1) Yes No 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 No Yes

design-build, live project

Tectonic Gardens Hughes, Michael 60(2) Yes No Yes

design-build Surface/Thickness Translated:

Design-Build as Vehicle

Iwamoto, Lisa; Scott, Craig 54(3) No Yes Yes

community, community design, design- build

Philanthropic Architecture:

Nongovernmental Development Projects in Latin America

Jann, Marga; Platt, Stephen 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

design-build The Reality of One-Which-Is-Two"- Mosque Battles and Other Stories:

Notes on Architecture

Kusno, Abidin 57(1) No No -

design-build Accelerated Fabrication: A Catalytic Agent within a Community of Caring

Lasala, Hector; Gjertson, W. Geoff 58(4) Yes Yes Yes

design-build Architectural Reenactments at 1:1 Scale

Mannell, Steven 60(2) No Yes Yes

design-build Extraordinary Performances at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Moe, Kiel 61(4) No - -

design-build Modeling the Void Pelletier, Louise 62(2) No - -

community A Useful Practice Perkes, David 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

community, live project

Buildings Recycled-City Refurbished

Poon, Ben Ho-Sing 54(3) No - -

design-build Space of Criticism: Exhibitions and the Vernacular in Italian Modernism

Sabatino, Michelangelo 62(3) No - -

community, community design, design- build

Client-Situated Architectural Practice: Implications for Architectural Education

Schermer, Brian 55(1) No - -

(6)

design-build Hearing Architecture: Exploring and Designing the Aural Environment

Sheridan, Ted; Van Lengen, Karen 57(2) No - -

design-build Vessels of Expression and Flows of Innovation

Tombesi, Paolo; Martel, Andrew 59(2) No - -

design build The Sheer Opacity of Contemporary Enclosure

Veikos, Cathrine; Cheng, Renee 57(2) No - -

design-build Complementary Virtual Architecture and the Design Studio

Wake, Warren K.; Levine, Sally L. 56(2) No - -

design-build Small Built Works Project Wales, Brad 60(2) Yes No Yes

design-build Why the Orders Belong in Studio Westfall, Carroll William 61(4) No - -

design-build The Virtual Architecture of Silicon Valley

Wright, Gwendolyn 54(2) No - -

(7)

Information Sheet

An investigation into the origins, motivations and roles of live projects in architectural education

Chief investigator / supervisor:

Prof. Ruth Morrow

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

Investigator / student:

James Benedict Brown

School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering

Queenʼs University, Belfast David Keir Building Stranmillis Road Belfast BT9 5AG

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.

(8)

Appendix 4 Respondent consent form

Consent Form

Thank you for your participation in this research. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Researchers at Queen’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, peer- reviewed journals, conference papers and further research.

2 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.

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

4 The interviewer will respect the interviewee’s right to a point of view and must not use any means to restrict the interviewee from expressing that view.

5 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:! ! _______________________

(9)

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 architecture’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

(10)

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 school’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 school’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.

(11)

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.

(12)

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.

(13)

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.

(14)

Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule

Background information

No. Question Purpose

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

Questions 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 were intended verify the background/biographical information gathered before the interviews (see appendix 5 for interview respondents’

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.

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?

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?

The literature review found various positions relating to the

“post-Schön” design studio in architectural education, namely critiques of the structuralist pedagogies of Donald Schön by Eraut (1994), Till (2005), Usher et al, (1997), Waks (2001), Webster (2008) versus the endorsements of the “Schönian”

design studio, such as Cunningham (2005).

(15)

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

Question 1.2 sought to prompt and exploration of the link between education and practice, for instance are we educating primarily for practice? Concurrent with these research were a 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, what are the greatest external pressures (over which you have no control) which threaten to affect the quality of your work?

Lonergan & Andersen write that “every pedagogical choice has to take account of its restrictions, limitations and

constraints.” (1998, p. 72) Questions 1.3 and 1.4 sought to establish whether the respondents’ experiences of higher 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 14

(16)

No. Question Purpose 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?

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) Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown - jamesbenedictbrown@yahoo.co.uk

(17)

No. Question Purpose 2.1 In the context of architectural

education, how would you describe a live project?

The literature reveals some divergence of opinion about what constitutes a live project, although variations exist around a 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 architectural education, can you name three schools or programmes, either in this country or abroad, which you would regard as being influential?

Questions 2.2 and 2.3 are broadly similar to those asked by Toker (2007) in his survey of community design practitioners, and are asked in order to establish which particular live projects or live project programmes are influential.

2.3 How did you come to know about these projects?

Questions 2.2 and 2.3 are broadly similar to those asked by Toker (2007) in his survey of community design practitioners, and are asked in order to establish which particular live projects or live project programmes are influential.

2.4 Do live projects exist in disciplines other than architecture?

Questions 2.4 and 2.5 are to determine whether live projects are seen as unique to architecture or similar to other

disciplines and pedagogies, and to determine whether the link 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).

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

Questions 2.4 and 2.5 are to determine whether live projects are seen as unique to architecture or similar to other

disciplines and pedagogies, and to determine whether the link 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).

(18)

Live projects and their location / timing in the curriculum

3.1 At which stage or level of a five year course in architecture do you think are live projects most effective?

Questions 3.1 and 3.2 are asked in order to establish whether live projects and their engagement with the reality of practice can bring too much complexity to the learning process.

Writing with regard to medical education, Dornan & Bundy 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) 3.2 What is the optimum length of time

for a live project to run?

Questions 3.1 and 3.2 are asked in order to establish whether live projects and their engagement with the reality of practice can bring too much complexity to the learning process.

Writing with regard to medical education, Dornan & Bundy 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 project require more or less staff input than comparable studio-based projects?

Considering Lonergan & Anderson’s (op cit) concern regarding the resourcing of live projects, questions 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 seek to prompt a discussion about how live projects are resourced and what their requirements are. Bonnen

emphasises that “the design of [outreach] organizational 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)

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

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

(19)

3.6 Do you regard live projects as primarily teaching or research activities?

This research was conducted in an academic milieu preceding the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) 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 projects in your curriculum, what other activities, courses or modules were changed, moved or replaced?

This question seeks to ask that if live projects were new to the curriculum, what did they replace? Are they considered an improvement over what they replaced?

3.8 Was the live project programme developed as a response to any particular issue?

An expansion of the previous question.

(20)

Live projects and their stakeholders

4.1 From the point of view of the school as a whole, what are the pros and cons of including live projects in the curriculum?

Questions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 invited respondents to consider the advantages and disadvantages of live project participation from the perspectives of the three major participant / 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 involved in ‘live’ and ‘non-live’

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

This question seeks to explore perceptions of student motivations.

4.5 What motivates clients to be involved with live projects?

There is little in the literature to suggest what motivates 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

(21)

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)

(22)

No. Question Purpose 4.6 How do you mediate between the

expectations of the client(s) and the students?

On the subject of mediating between students and clients, Brand & Rincón write (with my emphasis) that “this is a 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 Can you recall any live projects where this has been successful?

Questions 4.7 and 4.8 seeks to solicit specific examples to illustrate the issues raised in the preceding questions.

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

Questions 4.7 and 4.8 seeks to solicit specific examples to illustrate the issues raised in the preceding questions.

Before the live project

5.1 How are potential live project clients identified?

During the author’s own participation in a live project at the University of Sheffield in 2006, it was found that the majority of recent live projects were situated on sites and in

communities within a short distance of the procuring tutor’s home.

5.2 Who is normally responsible for identifying potential live projects?

During the author’s own participation in a live project at the University of Sheffield in 2006, it was found that the majority of recent live projects were situated on sites and in

communities within a short distance of the procuring tutor’s home.

5.3 For what reasons might a proposed live project not be taken forward?

What criteria are applied to the selection of live projects?

(23)

5.4 Are public or private clients better suited for live projects?

The author’s own experience of live projects (at the University 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 designing the live project brief?

The respondents have been chosen for the sample because of 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 that process together?

Continuing from question 5.5, this question seeks to explicitly 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)

(24)

After the live project

6.1 How does a live project conclude? Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live projects’ conclusions planned for, whether live projects are 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 contributions to society and are these contributions as short- lived as the projects themselves?’ and ‘What happens after a live project dies?’ (Beamont, 2008, p. 97)

6.2 Can a live project be extended beyond its planned conclusion?

Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live projects’ conclusions planned for, whether live projects are evaluated and whether such evaluations are handled formally.

6.3 Who manages the live project if it does continue?

Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live projects’ conclusions planned for, whether live projects are evaluated and whether such evaluations are handled formally.

(25)

6.4 Should student’s live project work be assessed?

Beamont’s questions for further research included: “Should the assessment involve the client?” “Should the assessment be 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 through field-based activities may deserve to be presented or demonstrated in a variety of different ways, many of which do 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.” (Grundy- Warr, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 50) 6.5 Who leads and participates in the

assessment of students’ live project work?

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.” (Grundy- Warr, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 50) 6.6 Should clients or students participate

in the academic assessment of students’ live project work?

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.” (Grundy- Warr, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 50)

6.7 How are the live projects themselves evaluated after their completion?

Questions 6.7 and 6.8 are prompted by the observation of 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?

Questions 6.7 and 6.8 are prompted by the observation of Kent et al who note that “debriefing of students is a critical but often neglected part of student fieldwork.” (Kent et al.,1997, p.

322)