Insight into Research Dilemma in Design Studios and Relationships with the Architecture Curriculum

Abstract

Design studios play a significant role to train the students in architecture programs. Studios call as core modules in programs that are supposed to apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the students for the design’s topic, process, and project. However, the design process follows a tradition in studios based on project design than research activities. The research applied the qualitative content analysis method to analyze the design studio modules' descriptions. The finding of the research identifies that the content of the modules' descriptions does less adapt to research activities. Despite the inductive content explanations, the analysis activities are far from a comprehensive research approach due to the missing aspects in the content of the modules descriptions in the curriculum. In conclusion, research activity is an essential segment of architecture education that has been missing in the curriculum due to the time and location. However, complexity, uncertainty, and variety in the design context remind the necessity of integrating design studio with real-world studio activities through research orientation.  

Keywords

• Architecture education
• Curriculum
• Design studios
• Research activities
• Modules description

References

1. Antrop, M. (2013). A brief history of landscape research. In P. Howard, I. Thompson, & E. Waterton, The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies (pp. 12-22). New York: The Routledge.
2. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.
3. Bashier, F. (2014). Reflections on architectural design education: the return of rationalism in the studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3, 424–430.
4. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, A Journal of Educational Strategies, 2, 39-43.
5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369-398.
6. Çalışkan, M., & Serçe, H. (2018). Action research articles on education in Turkey: A content analysis. KEFAD, 19(1), 80-102.
7. Carmona, M. (2001). Housing design quality: through policy, guidance and review. London: Spon Press.
8. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 2014 Volume 19, Article 64, 1-20, 64, 1-20.

9. Cikis , S., & Ek, F. I. (2010). Conceptualization by visual and verbal representations: An experience in an architectural design studio. The Design Journal, 13(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12766130824975
10. Clemente, V., Tschimmel, K., & Pombo, F. (2017). A future scenario for a methodological approach applied to PhD design research, development of an analytical canvas. The Design Journal: An International Journal for All Aspects of Design, S792-S802. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353025
11. Collins, P. (1979). The eighteenth century origins of our system of full-time architectural schooling. Journal of Architectural Education, 33(2), 2-6.
12. Combrinck, C. (2018). Socially responsive research-based design in an architecture studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7, 211–234.
13. Deming, E. M., & Swaffield, S. (2011). Landscape architecture research: Inquiry, strategy, design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14. Dizdar, S. D. (2015). Architectural education, project design course and education process using examples. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, IETC 2014, 176, pp. 276 – 283.
15. DoF. (2012). Architecture program specification. Kigali: The University of Rwanda.
16. Draper, J. (1977). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural profession in the United States: The case of John Galen Howard. In S. Kostof, The architect (pp. 209–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Drexler, A. (1975). The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
18. Dreyfus, L. H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault; Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19. Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 2(1), 1-10.
21. Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture. Design Studies, 15(4), 433-447.
22. Fraser, K., Tseng, T.-L. B., & Deng, X. (2018). The ongoing education of engineering practitioners: how do they perceive the usefulness of academic research? European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(6), 860-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1450847
23. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
24. Garric, J.‐P. (2017). The French Beaux‐Arts. In M. Bressani, & C. Contandriopoulos, The companions to the history of architecture, volume III, nineteenth century architecture, part I: Historicism, the Beaux‐Arts, and the Gothic (pp. 1-15). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
25. Graaff , E. D., & Kolmos, A. (2007). History of problem-based and project- project-based. In E. d. Graaff, & A. Kolmos, Management of Change Implementation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering (pp. 1-8). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
26. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC.
27. Han, S. Y., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. (2015). In-service teachers' implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 63-76.
28. Hancock, J. (1995). The interpretive turn: Radical hermeneutics and the work of architecture. ACSA Annual Meeting History Theory Criticism, (pp. 183-188). New York.
29. Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education-theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5
30. Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Foard, N. (2006). A short introduction to social research. London: SAGE Publications.
31. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3).
32. Johnson, B. R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
33. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.
34. Kolmos, A. (2009). Problem-based and project-based learning institutional and global change. In O. Skovsmose , p. Valero, & O. R. Christensen, University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition (pp. 261-280). Springer.
35. Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2 ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
36. Lang, J. (2005). Urban design: A typology of procedures and products. London: Architectural Press.
37. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press.
38. Lefebvre, H. (1976). Reflections on the politics of space. Antipode, 8.
39. Littmann, W. (2000). Assault on the Ecole: Student campaigns against the Beaux Arts, 1925–1950. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), 159–166.
40. Madanovic, M. (2018). Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in architectural education: History and theory teaching at the Auckland school of architecture, 1927–1969. Interstices Auckland School Centenary Special Issues, 9-24.
41. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. New York: SAGE Publications.
42. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).
43. Miller, G., Dingwall, R., & Morphy, E. (2004). Using qualitative data and analysis. In D. Silverman, Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 325-341). London: Sage Publications.
44. Mitrache, G. (2012). Sustainable management in academic architecture research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 937 – 941.
45. Moretti, F., Van Vliet, F., Bensing, L., Deledda, J., Mazzi, G., Rimondini, M., Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 420-428.
46. Moughtin, C. J., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Laurea, P. S. (1999). Urban design: Method and techniques. London: Architecture Press, Second Edition.
47. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting environments: Tradition, deconstruction, hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
48. Mugerauer, R. (2014). Interpreting nature: the emerging field of environmental hermeneutics. Robert: Fordham University Press.
49. Neuman, L. W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson Education.
50. Neveu, M. J. (2009). Studia l studio. 97th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, The Value of Design (pp. 21-26). ACSA.
51. Niezabitowska, E. D. (2018). Research methods and techniques in architecture. New York: Routledge.
52. Noordin, M. K., Nasir, A. N., Ali, D. F., & Nordin, M. S. (2011). Problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) in engineering education: a comparison. Proceedings of the IETEC’11 Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
53. Onal, G. K., & Turgut, H. (2017). Cultural schema and design activity in an architectural design studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6, 183-203.
54. Owen, G. (2009). The thesis on the table: Research, pedagogy and identity. 97th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, The Value of Design, (pp. 674-680).
55. Palmer, E. R. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Northwestern University Press.
56. Piatkowska, K. (2016). Moving toward Competence in teaching Architecture: the relationship of research and design in academia. Procedia Engineering, 161, 1476 – 1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.613
57. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
58. Proudfoot, P. R. (2000). Structuralism, phenomenology and hermeneutics in architectural education. International Journal of Architectural Theory, 2, 1-17.
59. Rendell, J. (2004). Architectural research and disciplinarity. Architecture Research Quarterly, 8 (2), 141.
60. RIBA. (2014). Architects and research-based knowledge: A literature review. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
61. Roberts, A. (2007). The link between research and teaching in architecture. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2(2), 3-20.
62. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
63. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64. Seamon, D. (2015). Hermeneutics and architecture: Buildings-in-themselves and interpretive trustworthiness. In B. Janz, Hermeneutics, Space, and Place (pp. 1-13). Springer.
65. Seifert , K., & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational psychology. Zurich, Switzerland: Global Text.
66. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
67. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research. New York: SAGE Publisher.
68. Simone, A. (2010). Social infrastructures of city life in contemporary Africa. Discussion Paper, 51, 4-33.
69. Spannagel, C., Gläser-Zikuda, M., & Schroeder, U. (2005). Application of qualitative content analysis in user-program interaction research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), paper 29.
70. Stojanovic, D. (2014). What is architecture research today and where is the ground? Serbian Architectural Journal, 6, 266-276.
71. Tafahomi, R. (2021a). Insight into a personalized procedure of design in concept generation by the students in architecture thesis projects. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.910234
72. Tafahomi, R. (2021b). The Behavioral Patterns of the Student in the Position of Peer-Jury in Landscape Design Studio. EDUCATUM – Journal of Social Science, 7(2), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.6.2021
73. Tafahomi, R. (2021c). An attempt to fill the gap between the architectural studies and conceptualization in architectural thesis design studio. Journal of Design Studio, 3(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1012778
74. Tafahomi, R. (2021d). Application of physical and nonphysical elements in the conservation of historic core of city. South African Journal of Geomatics, 10(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajg.v10i1.6
75. Tafahomi, R. (2021e). Learning activities of the students in peer-jury practices in the architecture design studio. AKSARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal, 7(3), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.37905/aksara.7.3.795-814
76. Tafahomi, R., & Lamit, H. B. (2013). Hermeneutical phenomenology of interpreting the urban managers: Criticizing on the methodology and process of urban changing committee . Urban Management, 33, 127-142.
77. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2021). The interpretation of graphical features applied to mapping SWOT by the architecture students in the design studio. Journal of Design Studio, 3(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1019310
78. Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2013). Concept generation for design creativity (Vol. 8). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1
79. Thorpe, A., & Gamman, L. (2011). Design with society: Why socially responsive design is good enough. CoDesign, 7, 217–230.
80. Till, J. (2008). Three myths and one model. Building Material, 17, 4-10.
81. Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100-110.
82. Vreman-de Olde, C., Jong, T. d., & Gijlers, H. (2013). Learning by designing instruction in the context of simulation-based inquiry learning. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 47-58.
83. Williams, M., & Robert, L. B. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.