Advertisement

Design Research in the Swamp

Toward a New Paradigm
  • Jay Farbstein
  • Min Kantrowitz
Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design book series (AEBD, volume 3)

Abstract

In the topography of practice, they [researchers] must either remain on the hard dry ground where they can function according to the canons of tech nical rationality, applying research-based theory and technique to a narrow range of well formed problems ... of problems of limited scope and importance ... or they can descend to the swampy terrain below where they cannot be rigorous in any sense they know how to describe. (Donald Schon, 1984, p. 4).

Keywords

Design Research Russell Sage Foundation Architectural Practice United States Postal Action Research Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Institute of Architects (1980). Owner-Architect Agreement. Handbook of Profes sional Practice. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Archea, J., & Margulis, S. J. (1979). Environmental research inputs to policy and design programs: The case of preparation for involuntary relocation of the institutionalized aged. In T. O. Byerts, S. C. Howell, & L. A. Pastalan (Eds.), Environmental context of aging: Life-styles, environmental quality, and living arrangements (pp. 217–228). New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, R. (1978). Post occupancy evaluation of housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.Google Scholar
  4. Brill, M., & Parker, C. (1987). Using office design to increase productivity for the small business. Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation.Google Scholar
  5. Carpman, J. (1983). Influencing design decisions: An analysis of the impact of the patient and visitor participation project on the University of Michigan replacement hospital project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  6. Carpman, J., Grant, M., & Simmons, D. (1986). Design that cares: Planning health facilities for patients and visitors. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Carpman, J., Grant, M., & Simmons, D. (1984). No more mazes: Research about design for wayfinding in hospitals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of the Replacement Hospital Program.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. (rev. ed.). New York: Heath.Google Scholar
  9. Dixon, J. M. (1988). Augmenting design through user training. Progressive Architecture, 1 (January), 143.Google Scholar
  10. Farbstein, J., Kantrowitz, M., Schermer, B., & Hughes-Caley, J. (in press). Post-occupancy evaluation and organizational development: The experience of the United States Post al Service. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation: Advances in methods and applica tions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  11. Farbstein, J., Archea, J., Kantrowitz, M., Shibley, R., Wineman, J., & Zimring, C. (1986). Designing and building with rehabilitation in mind. In G. Davis (Ed.), Building performance: Function, preservation and rehabilitation (Special Technical Publication 901, pp. 39–45). Phüadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutman, R. (1988). Architectural practice: A critical review. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hart, G. K., & Kurtz, J. (1980). Designers are the first market for passive solar innovation. Solar Review. Washington, DC: United States Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  14. Jockusch, P. (in press). Post-occupancy evaluation as a tool for the preparation of architectural competitions. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation: Advances in methods and applications. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1982). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Joroff, M., & Moore, J. (1984). Case method teaching about design process management. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1 ,Fall), 14–17.Google Scholar
  17. Kantrowitz, M. (1985). Has environment and behavior research made a differenceEnvironment and Behavior, 17 ,25–46.Google Scholar
  18. Koncelik, J. A. (1982). Aging and the product environment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  19. Min, B.-H. (1988). Research utilization in environment-behavior studies: A case study analysis of the interaction of utilization models, context, and success. (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
  20. Moleski, W., & Lang, J. (1982). Organizational goals and human needs in office planning. In J. Wineman (Ed.), Behavioral issues in office design (pp. 3–21). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  21. Moreno, E. M. (1989). The many uses of postoccupancy evaluation. Architecture ,78(4), 119–121.Google Scholar
  22. National Endowment for the Arts (1984). The geriatric personal furnishings system. Exemplary design research, 1983. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  23. Pauls, J. (1986). Mock trial: Litigation following an injury in a fall on a residential stair. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes, & C. Zimring, (Eds.), The costs of not knowing (p. 387). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  24. Preiser, W., Rabinowitz, H., & White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  25. Schneekloth, L. H. (1987). Advances in practice in environment, behavior, and design. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 1, pp. 307–334). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  26. Schon, D. A. (1984, April) Education for reflection-in-action. Paper presented at the Harvard Business School Anniversary Colloquium on Teaching by the Case Method, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Steinfeld, E. (1986). A case study in the development of a research-based building accessibility standard. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes, & C. Zimring (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association ,Wash ington, DC: EDRA.Google Scholar
  28. Stivers, E., & Wheelan, S. (Eds.). (1986). The Lewin legacy: Field theory in current practice. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Symes, M. (1989). The case method: A paradigm for environmental design research. Unpublished manuscript, University College London, School of Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  30. United States Postal Service. (1987). Retail design guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Utterback, J. M. (1974). Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science, 183 ,620–626.Google Scholar
  32. Ventre, F. T. (1988). The policy environment for environment and behavior research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 2, pp. 317–342). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  33. Vischer, J. (1989). Environmental quality in offices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  34. Wandersman, A. (1980). Combining research and practice in citizen participation. In R. R. Strough & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Optimizing environments: Research, practice, and policy (p. 103). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  35. Woods, J. H., & Casper, I. G. (1986). Using graduate students as consultants to teach action research to residence hall staff. In E. Stivers & S. Wheelan (Eds.), The Lewin legacy: Field theory in current practice (pp. 158–165). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Zeisel, J. (1975). Sociology and architectural design. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  38. Zeisel, J. (1986). Building purpose: The key to measuring building effectiveness. In M. Dolden & R. Ward (Eds.), The impact of the work environment on productivity: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation and Architectural Research Centers Consortium.Google Scholar
  39. Zimring, C., Wineman, J., & Carpman, J. (1988). The new demand-driven post-occupancy evaluation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research ,5(4), 273–283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay Farbstein
    • 1
  • Min Kantrowitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.San Luis ObispoUSA
  2. 2.Min Kantrowitz & Associates, Inc.AlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations