Ways to study and research Urban, Architectural and Technical design in education
Prof.dr.ir. Taeke M. de Jong 2002-12-19
Methodology
is understanding each other’s methods. However, there are more methods of
design, study and research then there are designers and scientists. Which of
them we can trust (reliability)? Which of them could communicate or justify our
results rationally in the scientific community (validity, criticism)?[a]
Which of them could be applied in our own professional motivation? Emotion is
our fuel making things move; reason is our oil making things work; criticism is
our steering wheel, giving direction. The way to select your own method
emotionally and rationally is criticism and debate.[b]
Criticism and debate suppose statements, drawings and texts to be criticised
and discussed.
1
The book
For the first time 48 authors of the same Faculty explained in one book how they study and research urban, architectural and related technical design and how others do it.[c]
Two
committees of methodology (in 1990 and 2000) studied which kinds of methods are
the competence of the Faculty of Architecture TUDelft to be teached. They
concluded 8 categories.
These
roughly became the main sections of the book:
|
A |
Naming and describing |
|
B |
Design research and typology |
|
C |
Evaluating |
|
D |
Modelling |
|
E |
Programming and optimising |
|
F |
Technical study |
|
G |
Design study |
|
H |
Study by design |
|
|
|
|
Figure 1 Categories of design related study |
|
|
|
|
The editors
of the book having read all contributions several times decided to standarise
only four technical terms throughout the book:
|
|
|
OBJECT |
|
CONTEXT |
determined |
variable |
|
determined |
Design research |
Design study |
|
variable |
Typology |
Study by design |
|
|
||
|
Figure 2 Categories of design oriented study |
||
|
|
||
We speak about
study when the object is variable, not yet determined. Electricity was studied
in the 18th century, but the phenomenon was not yet determined. That
happened in the 19th century. Then it became object of re-search, as
the Americans called the empirical scientific activity since the beginning of
the 20th century. We followed that use in Europe and degraded the
older and more general term ‘study’ as an activity of unexperienced students.
But any scientist not having the modesty of the beginner in a world of which we
only know and understand a negligible fraction, becomes an administrator of
still very poor knowledge. Knowing more means doubting more.
Hertzberger[d] explores the methods assisting in opening up possiblities, instead
of determining them. Descartes’
‘Discours de la Méthode’[e]
focused on doubt. Design study distrusts, like classical sciences, all that is obvious,
but does not throw everything overboard all at once. Experience evaporated into
routine deserves suspicion of the scientific approach, deeming no
pre-supposition sacred. However a culture, certainly a local one, surrounds us
with pre-suppositions unbeknown to us; like a fish without knowledge of the water it is
taken from, at the same time there is certitude of existing conditions: a
table, a bed, a kitchen entails great forms of freedom.[f]
As soon as the object is determined we can re-search it as
an empirical fact, with empirical methods.[g] Existing
drawings and texts are historical, empirical facts after all, subject to design
research[h]
and more designerly[i]:
typology[j].
But how to study them in a
scientific way when we have to make them? Before they exist only the
context could be studied empirically as a source of the programme of
requirements. But the translation into spaces, masses and materials is an other
question with many supplementary decisions. We make design studies like
Rembrandt and Chopin made studies, but can we do it in a scientific way? The
hypothesis of the book is: ‘Yes!’. If it would be ‘No!’, like Priemus of all the authors most closely seems
to state[k], design
courses are not home at a university.
2
Context
Figure 2 shows another important term for urban, architectural
and technical design: context.
The Rector
of our TUDelft in his preface agrees with us: there are no disciplines at the
TUDelft as context sensible as urban, architectural and related technical
design.[l]
There are varying political, cultural, economical, technical, ecological and
spatial contexts making scientific generalisation difficult. A good solution
here could be a bad solution there. How could we compare technical solutions,
buildings, neighbourhoods towns or regions when context can not be excluded by
a ‘ceteris paribus’ (under the same circumstances) supposition? Which types and
concepts[m] survive in
different contexts in the course of time? Designs surviving changing functions
and programmes (part of their context) during the period buildings can exist as
a construction we call ‘robust’.
Designing
means varying a not yet determined object in our head. That is difficult
enough, even when the constraints are described properly enough for systematic
optimisation.[n] But what to
do when not only the object is varying, but also the context, for instance the
location?[o] In the book that kind of study is called
study by design. In fact the graduate student of urbanism, architecture or
building technology searching for an object of study and a location is studying
by design. The idea of the graduate project develops in mutual relation between
possible object and location. The student starting her or his graduate project
is swimming in a sea of possibilities, sometimes for months or even years.
Is there a
definitive scientific method for study by design? No. We are searching for it,
the book is searching for it and there are examples[p].
The simplest way is to keep context for the time being as if determined and
vary the object (design study) and than keep the designed object as if
determined and vary context (typological research) and the reverse, again and
again. Than it is useful to know something about the possibilities of design
study and typology until now. Is it the only method? We do not think so. You
can invent a new method or use existent methods. If you invent a new scientific
method, you get a place in the next edition of the book. However, if you invent
a new method you have to prove it to be new and thus read the book first.
Otherwise people will say ‘We knew that already’.
We speak
rather easily about varying the context, for instance the location. But context
is more than location, it is also the ecological, technical, economical,
cultural and political context. They all vary! How do we handle that? By
experiencing the possibilities. The book helps with a scheme (Figure 3).
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3 Contexts |
|
|
Look for the
range of scales where your object of study has its place. The rest is context.
Any programme of requirements originates in the context of the future object.
But what kind of context is it? The management on municipal level can be an
initiator, the neighbourhood can obediently follow. Indicate suppositions like
this with ‘!’ and “?” in the scheme on some levels of scale in the upper rule.
The surrounding culture could be experimental (‘>’) or traditional (‘<’)
and that can be different on national, regional, local or any other scale. The
local economy could grow (‘+’), the national economy in the same time shrink
(‘-‘). The technology could be based on division of tasks (‘/’) on regional
level and on combination (‘x’) on local level. In my garden I could develop to
more ecological diversity (‘|’) and in the same time more evenness (‘=’) in my
neighbourhood. The built up area could be deconcentrated (‘D’) on regional
level, but concentrated (‘C’) on local level.
Calculate
how many contexts there are possible[q]
and you get a feeling of the possible variety of contexts. To make it worse
contexts are changing (perspective). Nevertheless it is important to realise
what context you have in mind and hand it over to your judge. When your design
or study proposal is judged, your judge could otherwise give a bad judgement
because (s)he has an other context in mind for the future. Her or his future is
not yours!
Moreover
specifying the supposed context of a drawing or text as a scientific
document makes it better retrievable.[r]
Retrievability
is a scientific issue of great importance. If you do not communicate your
results it will never be part of science. But how do we communicate our
(eventually preliminary) drawings for scientific criticism and debate? What
kind of accompanying key words do we have to choose to find our drawings back
struggling with the same design problems?
What kind
of key words do you need yourself to find reference drawings of other designers
in a data base according to your problem? Internet is the contemporary answer.
But you will not find easily images answering your specific design problem
using common key words. So we made an Interactive Image Archive of
Architectural Interventions (IAAI)[s]
on the internet. You can read about it in the book.[t]
Store your
drawing in the IAAI and the next day you will find it on the web, documented as
much as you did putting it in. The first time takes an hour, the second time a
few minutes because our server remembers earlier inputs. What is more, the
images are stored on your own personal server space any student of this Faculty
has. There you can make your own webside immediately. The images are no longer
a problem any more. Save your improvements there with the same name and our
server as well as your own website will publish it next day. If you do not like
your drawing anymore, delete it on your own server space and our server will
miss it at night and strike the entry next day on the internet.
The first input
will take time, because the input programme asks you to specify the context you
suppose as supposed environment for your design. You can skip that questions of
the input programme. If you do not, the IAAI could develop into a set of
sceneries for flight simulators. Than you can virtually fly over a country
choosing different scenario’s (contexts), designed by you and other future
designers of our country. Figure 3 becomes a keyboard to experience different possible
futures.
3
Key words
Many
methodical aspects you can find back in the comprehensive index
of the book. It counts some 10 000 key words and key word combinations. The
combinations are syntactically coupled
to find back lines of reasoning.[u]
In the index an
expression like y(x), object(subject) means ‘object y as a working (function,
action, output, result, characteristic) of the subject x (independent variable
actor, input, condition, cause)’. Syntactic key words give a short and clear representation to criticise
validity and reliability of the related concepts used in a study proposal (Figure 4).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4 Judging validity and reliability of concepts
used in a study proposal |
|
|
Suppose
you want to make a study proposal. In the index
you wll find:
|
|
|
|
|
|
study
proposal(ability to be criticised) 30 study
proposal(ability to be refuted) 30 study
proposal(accountability) 29 study
proposal(accumulating capacity) 29 study
proposal(accumulation(know how, knowledge)) 30 study
proposal(aim-orientated) 29 study
proposal(assignment initiator) 29 study
proposal(bold) 30 study
proposal(book) 30 study
proposal(cliché) 30 study
proposal(concept formation) 29 study
proposal(concepts(overlapping)) 29 study
proposal(conditional(position)) 29 study
proposal(conference) 30 study
proposal(converge) 30 study
proposal(daring) 30 study
proposal(designing(affinity)) 28 |
study proposal(drawing code) 29 study proposal(empirically orientated) 29 study proposal(end product) 30 study proposal(expressed(image)) 29 study proposal(expressed(verbally)) 29 study proposal(facilities) 30 study proposal(fascination) 29 study proposal(IAAI) 28 study proposal(identity) 29 study proposal(internet site) 29 study proposal(internet) 30 study proposal(key-words) 29 study proposal(knowledge) 29 study proposal(legend) 29 study proposal(literature lists) 29 study proposal(means-orientated) 29 study proposal(method) 29 |
study proposal(presentation)................................ 29 study proposal(publish)......................................... 30 study proposal(referee(external))......................... 29 study proposal(reference(images))..................... 28 study proposal(representation)............................. 30 study proposal(responsible)................................. 30 study proposal(retrievability)................................. 29 study proposal(risk-free citations)........................ 30 study proposal(scale falsification)........................ 29 study proposal(self-evident aspects).................... 30 study proposal(study programmes)...................... 30 study proposal(sub-projects)................................ 30 study proposal(synergy)........................................ 30 study proposal(theme)........................................... 29 study proposal(title(significant)).......................... 29 study proposal(university latitude)........................ 28 study proposal(website)........................................ 30 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure
5 51
of approximately 10 000 keywords in Ways to Study |
|||
|
|
|
||
It is a checklist!
You only have to read 3 pages to know how a study proposal could be judged. On
that pages 7 criteria are mentioned which appeared to be useful to judge the
research proposals in the Architectural Intervention some years ago and
graduate proposals for Bachelors and Masters on our Faculty this year:
A Affinity
with designing;
B
University latitude;
C Concept
formation and transferability;
D
Retrievability and accumulating capacity;
E
Methodical accountability and depth;
F Ability to
be criticised and to criticise;
G
Convergence and limitations.
In the
Masters Urbanism graduates experimented in 2002 with these criteria to make
study proposals. Concept formation (C)[v]
appeared to be a reliable first way to to make a preliminary study proposal,
using proper key words representing a personal fascination. They help to make
your study retrievable by others accumulating urban, architectural and
technical knowledge and know-how from the very beginning (D). Primarily vague
key words can be made operational for study and research by coupling them
syntactically, adding other key words into full sentences and making the
supposed working between them more explicit in hypotheses. Then the book helps
to find methods to study these supposed workings and prove them by design or
research. That helps methodical accounting (E) and makes scientific criticism
possible (F). You can show your affinity with designing (A) and your university
latitude (B) by comparing existing drawings[w]
representing your fascination and making their contexts explicit as described
in the preceding paragraph. But in the proposal you also have to show how you
will get a result in the limited time given converging from the shown latitude
at last (G).
The book is
not made to read all at once. It is made accessible by very many key
words to find your own unique way to study.