Relationships between Research and Design

A Commentary on Theories
  • Martin S. Symes
Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design book series (AEBD, volume 3)


The emphasis in this volume on relationships between environment-behavior research and design studies represents a new direction for the series. In the first volume, Franck (1987) hoped that the introduction of new theoretical perspectives would strengthen the links between psychology and design. Readers have had to wait for the current volume to be exposed to extensive discussion of the intellectual framework which will be required. It is undoubtedly a healthy sign that the authors addressing this issue argue strongly for the possibility of developing a unified theoretical stance. Their arguments are, however, mainly pragmatic. Equally strong arguments can be mounted for suggesting that integration at this level is unlikely to occur. In addition, there are a number of alternative philosophical positions available for environment-behavior research and no clear rationale for selecting only one.


Liberal Position Clear Rationale Architectural Theory Intellectual Framework Vernacular Architecture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrecht, J., &Lim, G. C. (1986). A search for alternative planning theory: Use of critical theory. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 3(2) ,117–131.Google Scholar
  2. Banham, R. (1960). Theory and design in the first machine age. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  3. Frampton, K. (1988). Place-form and cultural identity. In J. Thackara (Ed.), Design after modernism (pp. 51–66). London: Thames &Hudson.Google Scholar
  4. Franck, K. (1987). Phenomenology, positivism, and empiricism as research strategies in environment-behavior research and in design. In E. H. Zube &G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment; behavior, and design (Vol. 1, pp. 59–67). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  5. Hillier, B., &Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Joroff, M. L., &Moore, J. A. (1984). Case method teaching about design process management. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1) ,14–17.Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. March, L. (Ed.). (1976). The architecture of form. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Marris, P. (1987). Meaning and action: Community planning and conceptions of change. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Oliver, P. (Ed.). (1969). Shelter and society. London: Barrie &Rockliff.Google Scholar
  11. Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Saint, A. (1983). The image of the architect. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Saint, A. (1987). Towards a social architecture: The role of school-building in post-war England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Stiny, G. N. (1985). Computing with form and meaning in architecture. Journal of Architectural Education ,39(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  16. Swenarton, M. (1989). Artisans and architects: The Ruskinian tradition in architectural thought. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin S. Symes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations