Abstract
This chapter describes a collaborative interdisciplinary studio approach to teaching practice. These studios have engaged students, faculty, and in most cases, clients in real-world problem-solving activities ranging from an integrated plan-design-build urban redevelopment projects to regional scale analyses and plans. We found that integrated service-based learning projects were of benefit to students and communities alike if a specified set of criteria were met at the outset of the studio. Lessons for future pedagogy and research are derived from the findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Al-Kodmany K (2001) Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: tools for promoting community-based planning and design. J Archit Plan Res 18(2):110–130
Alonso W (1986) The unplanned paths of planning schools. Publ Int 82:58–71
Argyris C, Schön D (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Baum H (1997) Teaching practice. J Plan Educ Res 17(1):21–29
Brand R, Rincón H (2007) tackling six common dilemmas in ‘live’ planning projects. J Educ Built Environ 2(2):36–60
Davidoff P (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Inst Plan 31:331–338
Ebrahim A, Ortolano L (2001) Learning processes in development planning: a theoretical overview and case study. J Plan Educ Res 20(4):448–463
Eraut M, Maillardet FJ, Miller C, Steadman S, Ali S, Blackman C, Furner J (2004) Learning in the workplace, relationships between learning factors, and contextual factors. Paper presented at the AERA 2004 conference, San Diego
Forman RT (1997) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Forsyth A, Lu H, McGirr P (2000) Service learning in an urban context: Implications for planning and design professions. J Archit Plan Res 17(3):236–259
Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (trans: Bergman Ramos M). Continuum, New York
Gazvoda D (2002) Characteristics of modern landscape architecture and its education. Landsc Urb Plan 60:117–133
Gutman R (1992) Emerging problems of practice. J Archit Educ 45(4):198–202
Hack G (2015) Designing cities and the academy. J Am Plan Assoc. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1053510
King S, Conley M, Latimer B, Ferrari D (1989) CoDesign: a process of design participation. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Lang J (1983) Teaching planning to city planning students: an argument for the studio/workshop approach. J Plan Educ Res 2(2):122–129
Márai S (2002) Embers. Vintage, New York
McHarg I (1969) Design with nature. The Natural History Press, New York
McPhee J (1989) The control of nature. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York
Mostafavi M (2010) Why ecological urbanism? Why now? In: Mostafavi M, Doherty G (eds) ecological urbanism. Lars Muller, Baden, Switzerland, pp 12–51
Neuman M (2007) Multi-scalar large institutional networks in regional planning. Plan Theory Practice 8(3):319–344
Sanoff H (1978) Designing with community participation. McGraw-Hill, New York
Sanoff H (1991) Visual research methods in design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York
Shepherd A, Cosgriff B (1998) Problem-based learning: A bridge between planning education and planning practice. J Plan Educ Res 17(4):348–357
Sletto B (2010) Educating reflective practitioners: learning to embrace the unexpected through service learning. J Plan Educ Res 29(4):403–415
Spain D (1992) Creating and defending links between teaching, research, and public service. J Plan Educ Res 12(1):77–79
Swyngedouw E (1996) Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: closing the Belgian mines. Urb Stud 33(8):1499–1521
Wagner T, Baum L, Newbill P (2014) From rhetoric to real world: fostering higher order thinking through transdisciplinary collaboration. Innov Educ Teach Int 51(6):664–673
Williamson O (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Soc 87(3):548–577
Zeisel J (2006) Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for the input by co-instructor Betsy Morris to the reflections on the West Berkeley studio (case study 2). The studio in Sydney (case study 4) was supported by the Redwatch NGO, Housing New South Wales; the City of Sydney; the State Department of Planning and Infrastructure; the Sydney Metropolitan Development Authority (formerly the Redfern-Waterloo Authority), and scores of other professionals, residents, agency representatives, and academics listed in the full report who provided insights, advice, and knowledge that aided the process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neuman, M. (2018). The Collaborative Interdisciplinary Studio. In: Frank, A., Silver, C. (eds) Urban Planning Education. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55967-4_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55967-4_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55966-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55967-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)