10
Design research
Taeke
de Jong, Leen van Duin
10.1 Objects and contexts............................................. 2
10.2 Context dependency.............................................. 5
10.3 Grounds for comparison........................................ 5
10.4 Operationalisation.................................................. 7
10.5 Aims or means orientated approach...................... 9
10.6 Legend, form, structure, function,
process........... 9
Design research - when it comes down to it, is the comparison
of designs even though they are often implicit. Even if only one design (n = 1)
is researched (casuistic-study), then this is carried out at the background of
the design profession, its concept
formation and terminology and, therefore, carried out
on the basis of experience with other designs. One must be conscious of these implicit-references when describing a design and give notification
of these or even present images if necessary. At least one design object and
its context are explicitly described during design research. The analysis
begins once the description has taken place.
For example, Lefaivre
and Tzonis[1] compared the floor plan of Van Eyck’s Burgerweeshuis with its classic architectural canons with
those from ‘De Stijl’. They describe
how van Eyck combines these with new design means wherein both can be recognised. They enumerate a number of compositional
means, not only the well-known classical
and modern ones, but also their new synthesis in van Eyck’s work.
Can one selectively
search for similarities using earlier experiences when carrying out design
research using a definition
of a problem with pre-determined-concepts and stated hypotheses therein? Can these new
characteristics be discovered (which cannot be named) by means of design
research (exploratory-research, heuristic-research), or does
one come to a dead-end in the concept-constriction, which is imposed upon us
by the convention of the use of words?
Can everything be
said using words or does the drawing have to assist with this? How scientific
then is the conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Cesariano, 1521 |
Mondriaan, 1942-1944 Victory Boogie Woogie |
|
|
|
|
Eyck, 1960 Burgerweeshuis |
|
|
Figure 1 Lefaivre en Tzonis, 2000, see similarities in design means |
|
Are words and
drawings sufficient to make the experience (and up to a point not verbally expressible,
intuition) of the designer,
his or her ‘design-means (choice of materials, providing structure, providing
form, providing function, providing intention, the integration of their conflicts
or incomparability) communicable using examples? If the attempt continually
gets bogged down in mysticism and only succeeds in demonstrating, then the
ambition of the university design research can no longer be defended. All that
remains is the traditional practice of the ‘master-pupil apprentice’ relationship.
10.1 Objects and contexts
Architectural context entails everything that falls outside the
frame (or within the grain) that could have bearing upon the spatial object
being considered (such as the form of the location and the layout preceding
the design) or vice versa (see page ). The situation, the site and the programme of requirements belong to the context.
Therefore, strictly
speaking, context is not situated beside
or opposite to form.[2] After all, the (historical or prospective) context also has form, which is different at every
scale level. In the table below, an overview, as a variant of Frielings’ schema[3] is shown of research forms wherein the design
plays a rôle.
|
CONTEXT |
OBJECT |
|
|
Determined |
Variable |
|
|
Determined |
Design Research |
Design
study |
|
Variable |
Typological
research |
Study by
design |
|
Figure 2 Types of design-related study |
||
Design
study (upper right in the diagram) is a daily
practice in each and every architect’s office that does not exclusively work in
an instinctively untraceable manner. An object must be designed for a specific
context (spatial, ecological, technical, economic, cultural, and
administrative). New possibilities are sought for this determined context
usually using a programme of demands (part of the context). This form of
research will be discussed on page .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3 K.van Velsen, 1988 design study for the library of Zeewolde |
|
In the figure above
K. van Velsen studies, for instance, the possibilities of a
programme and a site for his library.[4] Study of that type comprises a formal
analysis and a functional analysis of the existing material and the social
(programmatical) context. Apart from this, a limited number of relevant precedents[5] is studied in search of possible means of
design; either implicitly, from memory, or explicitly, with the support of
documentation. Strictly speaking, this is design research as discussed in the
present Chapter.
Design research hones
the insight into possible directions
of solutions of a design problem; by the same token it contributes
to development of a reasoned concept of the designing.[6] As soon as a design has been completed (and
consequently, the object determined), it may be studied empirically as to its
external (contextual) effects; but also as to the means of design applied
within the design, together with their inter-change during the emergence of a
design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4 Design study of the design process of the library in Zeewolde |
|
After a number of
design researches in varying contexts have been carried out, one discovers a
complex of characteristic properties, typical for a class of buildings,
independent of context; the parlance is then of typological similarities. A type
may be rendered schematically. It is possible to verify whether form or
structure return under different conditions (architecturally, or in terms of
urban planning) and whether it maintains the same effectiveness, such as
functional properties (typology).
|
|
|
Figure 5 Typological research of libraries |
The type is then
context independent. This does not mean that the context is of no importance for the typology. The
context is variable, and this
variability is, therefore, the object of typological research: object(context). For each
(relative) context independent type, variants of this type are subsequently
described, from which the appearance may well be context dependent. The point
of discussion is the level at which the spatial-functional constellation of the design is dependent on the context
and, therefore, the generalisability. This research is highly concept defining for the design practice and the communication
between designers, as much in the naming of the type as the context. This form
of research will be discussed on page .
An inter-action
exists between object and context. If this can be perceived during the design
process, due to the fact that alternatively the object and the context are
subject to scale
changing design, then
this is known as study
by design. This
form of research will be discussed on page .
|
|
|
|
Figure 6 Study by design graduation vd. Voort |
|
10.2 Context dependency
If a design features a location, it has a
material (spatial, ecological, technical) and a social (economical, cultural,
political) context. That context will change. The
designer anticipates on future contexts (perspective) in so far as they are probable
during the period of the designing process. Each design differing from any
other design in space and/ or time, differs in context and perspective. This
evokes questions concerning the possibilities of comparison, although these are
often neglected during the study (ceteris paribus). However, the same
design has in each material and social context a different effect on the
various levels of scale. In a strict sense, one can not identify effects on the
base of effects identified previously, if the context differs. As an example
the spatial environment can be a built one; or un-built. In a more general
sense, one may call this concentration and de-concentration of building within
a radius of circa 30, 100, 300 metres; etc. Along these lines the Schröder House of Rietveld has been perceived, once upon a time, as the outer built-up area
of Utrecht city.
|
|
Nowadays it is faced by a main traffic road;
with new buildings at the other side. Within a radius of 300 metres the
building concentration has increased. The usage of the house has changed, as
have costs of maintenance, ownership, utilisation. Is the effect still the
same? Does the building still have the same characteristics in this context? To
what extent is the concept, the type, the model (that means three different
things!) still applicable in different contexts? This is already a subject of
typological study. The design study itself is restricted to detailed
description of the object, its context and the analysis of effects therein.
There are more contexts and perspectives than
the spatial one. As an example, the ecological context may vary between small
and considerable diversity in terms of soil, plants, growth and use:
homogeneous/ heterogeneous characteristics within a radius of 30, 100, 300
metres; etc.(see page ) On its turn the same applies to
each scale level around the architectural design vis-à-vis technical,
economical, cultural and political contexts. In the case of the technical context one should think of function segregation versus function integration within constructions[8], between constructions, but within buildings[9], between buildings, but within the ensemble[10], within neighbourhoods[11], within areas[12], within cities[13], within landscapes[14]. The economical context is determined by shrinkage versus expansion for the user,
care-taker, municipality, province, national government. Culturally there may
be huge difference in orientation on the traditional versus the experimental
with consumers, producers, third parties and passers-by. Politically, one
should ask oneself the question which agency acts in a leading versus a
following rôle: user, entrepreneur, municipal, provincial or national authorities?
10.3 Grounds for comparison
Red and round can not be compared. Something
can not be redder than round; a particular design can not be redder than the
degree to which the other design is round. Only in a poetical sense is it
possible to say that a design is more useful than firm, or more firm than
beautiful (alluding to Vitruvius[15]’ categories). The comparison has only a scholarly character if an
underlying common ground of comparison has been made explicitly.
|
|
|
While comparing designs or their parts, known
and identified from other designs, the question whether they can be compared
and, if so, in what sense, can not be avoided. In other words: which ground of comparison is chosen? In the case of red and round the two properties each
have a set examples of red and round objects (extension). In order to compare them, a third
set that may be counted is needed; for instance the set of recognisable objects that might be arranged as to colour and/ or shape more or less
conclusively, so that one could say: “this object is more readily recognised by
its colour than by its shape.[17]” In that case recognisibility is the ground of comparison for red and round, colour and shape.
When comparing
designs or design phases the inevitable question arises: are they comparable or not, and, if so, in which respect? In
other words: which basis for comparability is to be chosen? Is it useful to compare
designs with a specific magnitude, material application or colour, with
specified form principles, technical, functional or intentional purposes? Can
these principles be formulated beforehand or must one be surprised by the
design, in order to discover essentially new, not yet formulated principles? Legend
(material)[18], form[19], structure[20], function[21] and intention are, in this order,
pre-supposing bases for comparison.[22]
One of these aspects,
(for example, function), can be altered, within stated boundaries, (the
independent variable) in order to enable the effect of the variation (the dependent
variable) upon itself or upon other aspects to be reported. The function can,
within a stated boundary, (for example railway stations) be varied with different
design examples. Subsequently, different buildings with more or less the same
function are compared in order to see which effect this has on their structure
(the implemented separations and connections).
This is one of the 25
theoretically possible forms of design research differentiated upon here: structure(function)[23]. In this way the structure is regarded as an
action of the function (functional
analysis) or more
specifically as an action of the aim(intention).
Structure is a design means and this form of research is known as aim-orientated research because the function of the aim as an
independent variable is achieved with specific design means as the result
being: means(aim). This
sort of research can be carried out in the form of evaluative research (see
page ). Also
methods stated in the following Chapters (predictive, evaluative, optimising
research) can be utilised.
|
Independent
variable Dependent
variable: |
(Legend) |
(Form) |
(Structure) |
(Function) |
(Intention) |
|
Intention |
|
|
|
Intention (function) |
Ideology |
|
Function |
Semantics |
Function (Form) |
Function (Structure) |
Human sciences |
|
|
Structure |
Syntax |
Structure (Form) |
Construction |
Structure (Function) |
Structure (Aim) |
|
Form |
Naming |
Formalism |
Structuralsim |
Functionalism |
Symbolism |
|
Legend |
Logic |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1 Actions between legend, form, structure, function and intention |
|||||
10.4 Operationalisation
Risselada[24] placed two characteristics of architectural
design opposite to one another: Raumplan<>Plan
libre. He presents
a significant number of convincing examples of Loos and Le Corbusiers’ work without being able to conclusively
define the characteristics of both.
Supposing that the
level wherein space boundaries and bearing constructions come together is a
computable indicator ‘x’ from which the ‘Raumplan character’ R could then be
measurable from a design. When x is high, the design is of type ‘Raumplan’,
when x is low, the design is of type “Plan libre’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 9 Raumplan |
Figure 10 Plan libre |
|
The search for such
computable variables is called ‘operationalising’.
The level at which
the characteristic to be researched is represented is called ‘validity’, the
level at which the ranking or measuring approaches reality is called the ‘reliability’
|
Validity |
Reliability |
|
R(x,y,z) |
R(x,y,z) Reality |
|
R = characteristic to be tested x,y,z = computable variables wherein the characteristic to be tested is operational. |
|
|
Figure 11 Validity and reliability |
|
The aim of
'operationalising' is to make characteristic R that alone is an immeasurable characteristic, accessible
for more quantitative research. The value of the named variable x is high for
the Raumplan, low for the Plan libre, therefore both previously named extremes
are an action of x: Raumplan<>Plan libre(x). However, does characteristic
x cover the whole range of the difference, or is that only a ‘half truth’?
Should additional indicators be found, for example y and z: Raumplan<>Plan
libre(x,y,z.)? What is the connection between x, y, and z? If they overlap, these
aspects are measured twice; if there are missing factors, then
shortcomings in the validity exist. Are they of the same significance or should
each factor be weighed up?
10.5 Aims or means orientated approach
If the design,
contexts and perspectives wherein the design has been made are sufficiently described,
various aspects can be analysed. The methodical, most developed analysis confirms
if the design has achieved its goal within the given context: (aim-orientated research): means(aim). The
method of the aim-orientated research is discussed in more detail in the
section regarding evaluation (see page ). There
are, in fact, numerous architectural solutions in order to achieve the same
aim, from which the variation cannot be explained measuring efficiency.
|
|
|
The potential to
accommodate numerous or unexpected
(non-programmed) functions (multi-functionality, robustness) is a
researchable quality as well.
The question can also
be inverted: if these means are utilised in the design, which aims do these
serve: aim(means)? This is
means-orientated research, because the design means like form and structure can
be independently varied, in the relationship function(form) or function(structure), in order
to determine their action on the function. Could a round building be used as a
railway station?
|
M=f(A) |
A=f(M) |
|
Figure 13
Means resulting from Aim or vice versa? |
|
Can a hall with a
span of 50m function as a railway station? A design can have numerous functions
that are verbally indescribable like specific forms of image qualities or non-described ‘functional potentials‘, which
have never been included in a programme. Is it possible to feel at home in a
round building, be able to orientate oneself? More comprehensive actions occur
at this point, which are more difficult to operationalise empirically, such as
‘hospitality’ or ‘transparency’.
The effect to be
reported upon can also concern the structure or form of the design, such as the
relation between structure(form) or form(form) (composition). In this
case the total focus is on the formal design means, the designer’s toolbox. Can a
round shape combine itself with a rectangular form? Once these questions have
been asked the structural action of such combinations can be looked at on a
higher level: structure(form(form)). What are
the technical consequences of a combination of rectangular and round forms?
10.6 Legend, form, structure, function, process
The study into the means of design is a study
into the instruments that could bring us beyond the probability of empirical
reality in the field of what is possible. In this the relation between form and
function in the design and in the designing process is crucial. Form has perceptible (visual, tactile, motor) and conceptual functions,
but does not equal it, in spite of the suggestion of the dictionary (“form is
outward shape”). People do experience form, but form is not the same as that
experiencing value. It determines, for instance, also functional and constructional
possibilities. Form (and format!), seen separated from a possible causation, is
the situation of spreading of adjacent material, so that it, for instance, may
be recorded, recollected and represented in co-ordinates.
|
|
|
Figure 14 Situations of spreading |
Concentrated situation of spreading can be described
with an outline. If a regularity is found within a spreading situation a pattern results. A pattern with an increasing density is a gradient. This gradient may be a central,
bi-modal, or tri-modal one.
Form pre-supposes that something takes on form
(material, space), expressible in a legend.
|
|
|
Figure 15 Legend (material or space) |
The units of the legend emerge in the drawing
as a situation of spreading, proportional to those of the material or space in
reality. This form is perceived by different people from different standpoints
and is associated with meaning. By the same token form does not
equal experiencing. Experiencing is an external working (function) of the form. However, the image
of the form is, in its turn, something else than the experiencing of a form:
for an image may precede the form; something experiencing cannot do. Each
architectural drawing features legend units in material and spatial terms which
might be getting, or aiming at, structure and function. This also applies for
the image or the visualisation of both.[26]
|
|
matter |
space |
image |
|
form
(state of dispersion) |
Mass |
division |
appearance |
|
structure (separations and
connections) |
construction |
articulation |
composition |
|
function
(external action) |
physics |
use |
meaning |
|
Table 2
Domains of terminology |
|||
It is possible to compare individual stages of
the same location or of the same design. In that case the design study concerns
a design process in which the supplement or change of the drawing is evaluated.
|
|
|
|
Figure 16 Functionalism (Häring (1922) Cow Stable Holstein) |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 17 Formalism (Gehry (1998) Museum Bilbao) |
|
When should the designer translate the usage function desired to form (functionalism[27]), and when is it allowed
to give a form concept pride of first place (formalism[28],)? ‘Programme’ (literally ‘pre-writing’) is seen
in this Chapter as the working of
a (prescribed) function. In the end it results in prescribed formats and
separations or connections in between, with a view on the function. The
question is then: should one always design from a programme, or is it possible
to generate functions from a design study, for instance of the potential of the
location?
Between function and form the concept ‘structure’ may be placed; many regard it as one that is too ambiguous. Structure
is the set connections and separations with which the constituent parts form a
more than incidental whole. This is implying more than the way in which
com-ponents have been put together (com-position) or a regularity therein (pattern). Is it possible to determine form
and function also from the structure (structuralism)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 18 Structuralism (Blom (1962) Prix de
Rome) |
|
If the designing process is selected as foundation for comparison, a first classification may be made in terms of the multi-functionality of the product (the function aimed at). Mono-functional products, as there are an tea-pot, a road, an air-plane, feature a designing process, fundamentally differing from those applying to a building or a city. It is a much more optimising designing process than the other one, in which the large number of aims intended makes for a rather more means-orientated approach. Within the urban architectural design process a distinction may be made as to function: the Board of a School is a different kind of commissioner than a building co-operation, or a rail-road executive board. In its turn, within each function the degree of the multi-functionality aimed at is determining the degree to which the designing process is taking function as a point of departure (functional analysis as a vanguard, functionalism), or form (morphological analysis heading, formalism), or structure (structuralism), as its intention. Here study by design is catching its connecting flight to the methodology of designing itself; and so to the design study.