Research Methods in Architecture - Essay Example

RESEARCH METHODS IN ARCHITECTURE due: Introduction Research has numerous s and takes various forms as the methodology used. In different fields, it usually encompasses the assimilation of new information, proven or unproven, towards developing a solution (Stevens 2002, p. 17). In architecture, as well as engineering, it is represented as a balancing act between quality, budget, and time. Research requires a definition and understanding of the objective, utilization of available resources, approach and methodology incorporated in the study, and the conclusion reached (often engaging the viability of the solution or proposition). Architects and design innovation, as recognized by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) leans towards the inclusion of innovation and efficiency towards energy reduction constructions, which are directly related to the carbon footprint (Dye 2014, p. 2). Researchers have individual preferences in conducting research, as there is no mandatory approach that is predetermined by field authorities or agencies, towards a certain subject or topic (Reason & Bradbury 2006, p. 48). In this critique, the objective is to make a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the methodologies used by Omar Nagati and Celia Lury in the Theory Forum in Border Topology, covering Blurring boundaries, reconstituting borders and Double-Blind, Double Bind: The plane that disappeared respectively. Omar Nagati The presentation by Nagati captures the transformation through which Cairo underwent, in a time when the authority seemed void. The presentation covers the idea of boundaries in the context of social and economic profiles, encapsulating the separation and marginalization of Egypt. The reconstruction of boundaries and the people retaking the city is captured in the presentation, with before and after images presented as evidence to portray the progress that has been made by the society. The common concept in the reconstruction of borders is the public space, which attracts the question of belonging and ownership. The temporary absence of the government provided the citizens with an opportunity to engage in a revolt by which reconstitution of infrastructure occurred. The approach used in the development of the presentation involved a lot of data gathering where the images of the subject through different phases were captured (McNiff & Whitehead 2006, p. 88). The research appears to have documented the change through which the society experienced, concentrating on the public spaces and the changes called for by the society, in an effort of reducing marginalization. The mapping of the social trends is used as a means of graphically representing the social trends in the people, where the before and after aspects are captured. The contrast in the topographical, economic, social, and political divides is associated with the nature of infrastructural development experienced in the region. The political indifference in Egypt also captures the boundaries associated with the regions development. Part of the images presented by Nagati illustrated the political distribution of the Egyptians. There is a feeling of mutual dependence in governance, as it seems that the formal regions relate to the opposition. In the expression of indifference, the people have resulted to taking up responsibilities they expected the government to have provided as a means of self-preservation and interaction with the ‘first class’ members of the society. The efforts by the people are towards redefining the social and organizational boundaries in the community, which resulted in the marginalization. Figure 1: Mapping of the political trends. Source: MCNIFF, J. & WHITEHEAD, J. (2006). All You Need to Know About Action Research. London: Sage. The design concept is pursued under the context of sustainability in which the second-class citizens are provided opportunities to get involved in opportunities that would facilitate the development of the middle ground. The stakeholders to the projects initiated by the presenter are asked to contribute towards the establishment of a matrix that establishes how best to resolve different concerns of both sides of the population divide. His work is similar to that undertaken by young GAHL. Figure 2: Erection of Statue as a sign of governance superiority. Source: RABIE, D. (2013, September 23). The day after. Retrieved January 11, 2015, from http://www.madamasr.com/sections/politics/day-after Celia Lury The presentation by Lury is begun with a definition of what borders are, derived from different sociologists, similar to the work of RIBA architectures. Initially, the presenter expounds on the scope of the project through definition of what borders are, and how the paper concentrates on the concept of borders, mainly topological. The subject that initiated the research is the disappearance of an aircraft, from which the hypothesis of double blind is derived. The emphasis of the paper is the reliance of sight as a means by which borders are defined. In the paper, she argues that borders and boundaries are defined via sight, but as a function on infrastructural organizations based on surface observation. Using the context of boundaries based on sight, she argues that boundaries made via edges and horizons focus on surface potential. Figure 3: Visualizing the horizon. Source: MCINTYRE, A. (2008). Participatory Action Research. California: Sage. An important approach that is used in the presentation is the call to literature from research conducted by other researchers in different fields, from medical literature, cybernetics, and sociology. The use of literature is used to make arguments and expound on the idea of sight as a means of boundary definition (McIntyre 2008, p. 66). The quoted parts of the presentation include definitions, hypothesis, discussions, and conclusions. The research gathered by the speaker incorporates the trends of society such as the use of technologies, satellite, GPS (Global Positioning Satellite), and photography, in defining boundaries. The research is used to pursue the idea of borderless boundaries, which is generated from composite vision, which is founded on time. The use of imagery collected by the presenter is another approach used in the forum. The presentation incorporates images that show variations in defining boundaries, based on different schools of thought and beliefs. She is categorical in stating that the existence of boundaries is produced by different researchers and their expertise. Additionally, the presentation also integrates a chronological account of the participation of different entities in the search for the disappeared flight, which sheds light on the sharing of information by society, over the constraint of security. Using the presented evidence, Lury elaborates on the role of society in the definition of boundaries (limits). Figure 4: Concept of borders as defined by Lury. Source: WEIZMAN, E, (2005). Intertwined Sovereignty. Retrieved January 11, 2015, from http://www.madamasr.com/sections/politics/day-after In the concept of visibility and invisibility, Lury looks into the structuring of society and the aspects of secrecy. In the discussion of the plane, linked to terrorism, there is a global order where the vulnerabilities of the society are covered, thereby developing invisibility, though visible. According to the discussion of Lury, multiplication of secrets, may lead to borderless interaction, but there are numerous possible ends that may arise from a composite view. Analysis The research conducted by both Nagati and Lury engages the audience since it has elements of scope, purpose, and approach (Yin 2011, p. 13). Nagati concentrates on the revolution and changes of the Egyptian society and the associated infrastructural modifications whereas the presentation by Lury concentrates on the elements that influence “blindness” and “blindness”. In either case, the society is an instrumental contributor towards the definition of boundaries, despite the claim of lacking a comprehensive approach. Considering the discussion by Lury, it is evident that the erection of boundaries is triggered by ‘selfishness’, which may take the form of self-preservation, self-empowerment, and security, among others. The research by Lury discusses the factors that influence the bounders, whereas Nagati concentrates on the impact of borders. Nagati fails to explain why the Egyptian marginalization occurred but quotes it as being the basis of the revolt, whereas Lury states that war is a probable outcome where boundaries are blurred. The approach and presentation criterion used by both speakers is different and targets different outcomes (Yin 2008, p. 27). The case presented by Nagati ultimately appears to be a report on the Egyptian revolt, which seem to restrict the context of research as concentrating on the idea of cause and effect. The nature of the presentation is an analytical presentation of information towards the changes that occurred and are on-going, with the speaker proclaiming contributions towards architecture and development. The images by Nagati tell of a story, but not the possibilities, such that the research concept is restricted to learning and gaining knowledge from the past and current events. Lury uses a different approach, which is more comprehensive and indicates that there is a likelihood of more than one outcome. The study indicates that the researcher’s focus is on the possible outcomes from learned trends in society (Yin 2008, p. 27). Lury uses gathered information to make predictions which she hypothesises as possible outcomes that are based on the acquired knowledge and information. The balance between documenting and criticising in the case of both speakers is lop-sided. The case of Nagati’s research leans towards documenting as opposed towards criticism. The images employed in the presentation captured different times through which the Egyptian society engaged in revolt. The images mostly depict the difference before and after the revolt. Some of the images presented capture the turmoil experienced in Cairo and tend to concentrate on the marginalization of the society. The criticism that is captured in the presentation is mainly in the inequitable distribution of resources through the establishment of borders that contributed to the differentiation of the society (Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, p. 61). Contrary to the presentation by Nagati, Lury’s presentation captures different definitions, descriptions and arguments by different scholars. This is established since the onset of the paper where she presents different definitions of borders from different fields in an effort to come up with a comprehensive definition of borders. She presents different perspectives to her research, which attracts the element of criticism in the researcher’s approach. The hypothesis formation is based on the evidence collected, from which the concept of the double bind argument emerges. Lury explains that there are factors into the concept of boundaries that may influence the data collected in research. The concept of boundaries being defined by edges and horizons is challenged by encompassing that bursaries are both seen and not seen and not seen but seen. She uses multiple arguments to explain the disappearance of the plane. Her individual derivation is that blindness or the inability to visualize the plain is a combination of factors. The information from the disappeared aircraft is founded on the observation of the craft. Elements of technology, political, social and organizational orders did affect the ability to observe the disappeared aircraft. The Nagati images portray a blurring of the boundaries between private and public property. According to the research, the absence of authority resulted in the encroachment of the private property, as there lacked an authority to define the boundaries. The researchers used a time-lapse overhead camera technique to capture the trends of the vendors in the downtown area who established outlets in front of shops, thereby being unfair competition. The complexity of borders is instilled in the people in a national scale such that the analysis of the social trends had elements of disregard for personal safety and sanctity. The element of sustainability dictated that a middle ground between the vendor and shopkeepers be established, which is in-line with the context of the people from the informal regions initiating projects to connect them to the first class region. The scope of the research for both Nagati and Lury appears defined. The subject of the research may be the basis of the time scope of the research. Initially, Lury begins by emphasizing the role of sight in the setting of boundaries. In considering this approach, the use of sight in the establishment of borders seems everlasting, as it is via sight that the human being interacts with the environment. In a way, irrespective of what we see and do not see, the limitations of sight will influence human and physical boundaries, and this will effectively affect the topological interpretations of the environment. Nagati’s scope is temporal and spatial, since it concentrates on the possibility of change. The revolt resulted in changes to the social and environmental compositions (Skeggs 2004, p. 52). The solutions, that are provided by the architects and engineers as solutions of temporal housing are proposals for an immediate resolve, which is subject to change. In essence, social change is dynamic, but human senses are relatively static. The data collection method for both researchers is unique to their study (Somekh 2006, p. 79). In both approaches, the collection of data is expected, but the nature of the data results in the different approaches used. The question of borders based on observation lies towards the scientific research conducted by different scholars whereas the changes in society require raw data. Lury’s research cannot be conducted based on surveys and questionnaires, since there would be no deduction on the concept but rather the view of the majority and minority groups. Since the study by Lury lies towards the definition of borders, in the context of what is seen and not seen, which revolves around conducting research from individual or organizational perspectives. Lury may conduct research via interviews and record assessment since the important information can be derived from individual’s response to the disappearance or visibility of an object. The approach that has been used in both cases is arguably effective and suited for the findings that have been presented. The conclusions of the speakers are different and illustrate the nature of their areas of expertise. The conclusions are mainly optimistic and try to portray the positivity in the utilization of borders. In the context of Lury’s study, she states that there are several possibilities that may arise from her findings and the numerous perspectives of borders and the concept of visibility. Lury states that factors such as politics, economy, and interrelations between societies will influence the concept of borders. This is a similar conclusion drawn by Nagita, though mainly, social trends are the main culprit in the governance and political borders. In all cases, the concept of borders is concluded as being in a relationship between society, economics, security, distribution of resources, and international relations among other factors. Lesson In the study I have learnt that climate and environmental concerns cannot be restricted to the material and production choices in architecture as it clearly transcends ecological and social realms, which is seen in the ongoing architecture projects. This is evident with continued innovations towards sustainability in architecture versus the on-going challenges in the climate conditions. Research, as a result, affects not only the profession practises, but also the definition. Clearly defining the role of the architect in research demands the development of guidelines to address the challenge of methodology and research practises, and RIBA is involved in this role by developing the ‘Research in Practise Guide’ to define acceptable conduct (Dye 2014, p. 2). Bibliography DYE, A. (2014). Architects and Research Based Knowledge: A Literature Review. London: Royal Institute of British Architects. HAMMERSLEY, M & ATKINSON, P (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd Ed. Oxon: Routledge. MCINTYRE, A. (2008). Participatory Action Research. California: Sage. MCNIFF, J. & WHITEHEAD, J. (2006). All You Need to Know About Action Research. London: Sage. RABIE, D. (2013, September 23). The day after. Retrieved January 11, 2015, from http://www.madamasr.com/sections/politics/day-after REASON, P. & BRADBURY, H. (Eds). (2006). Handbook of Action Research. 2nd Ed. London: Sage. SKEGGS, B. (2004). Class, self, culture Transformations: Thinking through Feminism. London: Routledge. SOMEKH, B. (2006). Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development. Maidenhead: OU. STEVENS, G. (2002). The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction. Cambridge, Mass, MIT. YIN, R. K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th Ed. London: Sage. YIN, R.K. (2011). Application of case study research. 3rd Ed. London: Sage. WEIZMAN, E, (2005). Intertwined Sovereignty. Retrieved January 11, 2015, from http://www.madamasr.com/sections/politics/day-after Read More