vol2: a critique of the live project

A critique of the live projectJames Benedict Brown, BA (Hons) M.Arch

Submitted in accordance with the requirementsfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Planning, Architecture & Civil EngineeringQueen’s University Belfast

Volume 2: Appendices

Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown - [email protected]

Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com

Table of contents

Appendix 1 Journal of Education in the Built Environment (JEBE) 1(1)- 6(1) literature search 2

Appendix 2 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) 53(1) - 63(1) literature search 3

Appendix 3 Respondent information sheet 6

Appendix 4 Respondent consent form 7

Appendix 5 Respondent profiles 8

Appendix 6 Respondents’ institution profiles 11

Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule 13

Appendix 8 Comparison of pilot and revised interview schedules 27

Appendix 9 Concepts 34

Appendix 10 Sample coded transcript 1 39

Appendix 11 Sample coded transcript 2 58

Appendix 12 Sample concept notebook pages 75

Appendix 13 Bibliography 77


Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com 1

Appendix 1 Journal of Education in the Built Environment (JEBE) 1(1)- 6(1) literature search

Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project?Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project?Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project?Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project?Q3 Was the paper written by either an educator or student involved in the project?

Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution?Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution?Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution?Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution?Q2 Does the paper compare teaching projects in more than one academic institution?

Q1 Does the paper describe an engagement of students of architecture with clients or end-users

outside the academic institution?







Keywords Paper title Paper authors V(N)

live project Tackling Six Common Dilemmas in

‘Live’ Planning Projects

Brand, Ralf; Rincón, Hugo 2(2) Yes No Yes

live project The Pedagogy of the Planning Studio:

A View from Down Under

Higgins, Marilyn; Aitken-Rose,

Elizabeth; Dixon, Jennifer

4(1) Yes No Yes

live project Fostering Deeper Engagement

between Industry and Higher

Education: Towards a Construction

Knowledge Exchange Approach

Heesom, David; Olomolaiye, Paul;

Felton, Anthony; Franklin; Richard;

Oraifige, Amal

3(2) Yes No Yes



Appendix 2 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) 53(1) - 63(1) literature search












community Public Participation: Technology

and Democracy

Al-Kodmany, Kheir 53(4) No Yes Yes

design-build A Museum of Living Architecture Alread, Jason; Leslie, Thomas 61(2) No - -

design-build Building Designs for Living: Studio

804 University of Kansas

Ascher-Barnstone, Deborah 55(3) Yes Yes No

design-build Navy Demonstration Project Barnstone, Robert V. 60(2) Yes Yes Yes

community Figure/Fabric: Process/Production Bertomen, Michele 54(4) Yes Yes No

design-build (Infra)Structural Landscapes: A

Mail-Slot System

Better, Hansy; Cosmas, Michael;

Piermarini, Anthony J.

55(3) No Yes Yes

design-build (Un)Intended Discoveries Boza, Luis Eduardo 60(2) No Yes Yes

design-build Design in Movement: The Prospects

of Interdisciplinary Design

Bronet, Frances; Schumacher, John 53(2) No - -

community For Want of Wind Cavanagh, Ted; Kroeker, Richard;

Mullin, Roger

58(4) Yes Yes Yes

community,

community

design

Translations Between Design

Research and Scholarship

Chi, Lily 61(1) No - -

design-build Translation and Materiality: The

Space of Invention Between

Designing and Building

Chun, Alice; Mcdonald, Timothy 55(3) Yes No Yes

community The Ideal of Community and Its

Counterfeit Construction

Clarke, Paul Walker 58(3) No - -

community Insurgent Architecture: An

Alternative Approach to Design-

Build

Corser, Robert; Gore, Nils 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

community Joint Maneuvers Creimer, Matias 60(2) No No Yes

design-build No Compromise Dunay, Robert; Wheeler, Joseph;

Schubert, Robert

60(2) No No Yes

community Studio South Erdman, Jori 59(4) Yes No Yes

design-build Designing / Building / Learning Erdman, Jori; Weddle, Robert 55(3) Yes No Yes

design-build From Kaolin to Kevlar: Emerging

Materials for Inventing New

Architecture

Fernandez, John 58(1) No No Yes














design-build Reinterpreting Sustainable

Architecture: The Place of

Technology

Guy, Simon; Farmer, Graham 54(3) No - -

community Location, Location, Location:

Gender and the Archaeology of

Urban Settlement

Haar, Sharon 55(3) No - -

community Design as Research Hinson, David 61(1) Yes No Yes

community Community-Driven Place Making:

The Social Practice of Participatory

Design in the Making of Union

Point Park

Hou, Jeffrey; Rios, Michael 57(1) Yes No Yes

design-build, live

project

Tectonic Gardens Hughes, Michael 60(2) Yes No Yes

design-build Surface/Thickness Translated:

Design-Build as Vehicle

Iwamoto, Lisa; Scott, Craig 54(3) No Yes Yes

community,

community

design, design-

build

Philanthropic Architecture:

Nongovernmental Development

Projects in Latin America

Jann, Marga; Platt, Stephen 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

design-build The Reality of One-Which-Is-Two"-

Mosque Battles and Other Stories:

Notes on Architecture

Kusno, Abidin 57(1) No No -

design-build Accelerated Fabrication: A Catalytic

Agent within a Community of

Caring

Lasala, Hector; Gjertson, W. Geoff 58(4) Yes Yes Yes

design-build Architectural Reenactments at 1:1

Scale

Mannell, Steven 60(2) No Yes Yes

design-build Extraordinary Performances at the

Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Moe, Kiel 61(4) No - -

design-build Modeling the Void Pelletier, Louise 62(2) No - -

community A Useful Practice Perkes, David 62(4) Yes Yes Yes

community, live

project

Buildings Recycled-City

Refurbished

Poon, Ben Ho-Sing 54(3) No - -

design-build Space of Criticism: Exhibitions and

the Vernacular in Italian

Modernism

Sabatino, Michelangelo 62(3) No - -

community,

community

design, design-

build

Client-Situated Architectural

Practice: Implications for

Architectural Education

Schermer, Brian 55(1) No - -














design-build Hearing Architecture: Exploring

and Designing the Aural

Environment

Sheridan, Ted; Van Lengen, Karen 57(2) No - -

design-build Vessels of Expression and Flows of

Innovation

Tombesi, Paolo; Martel, Andrew 59(2) No - -

design build The Sheer Opacity of Contemporary

Enclosure

Veikos, Cathrine; Cheng, Renee 57(2) No - -

design-build Complementary Virtual

Architecture and the Design Studio

Wake, Warren K.; Levine, Sally L. 56(2) No - -

design-build Small Built Works Project Wales, Brad 60(2) Yes No Yes

design-build Why the Orders Belong in Studio Westfall, Carroll William 61(4) No - -

design-build The Virtual Architecture of Silicon

Valley

Wright, Gwendolyn 54(2) No - -



Appendix 3 Respondent information sheet

Information Sheet

An investigation into the origins, motivations and roles of live projects in architectural

education

Chief investigator / supervisor:

Prof. Ruth MorrowSchool of Planning, Architecture and Civil EngineeringQueenʼs University BelfastDavid Keir BuildingStranmillis RoadBelfastBT9 5AG

e. [email protected]. 028 9097 4512

Investigator / student:

James Benedict BrownSchool of Planning, Architecture and Civil EngineeringQueenʼs University, BelfastDavid Keir BuildingStranmillis RoadBelfastBT9 5AG

e. [email protected]. 028 9097 5606

This research is part of a PhD thesis at the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPACE) at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB). This study will investigate the various conditions leading to the inception of live projects in schools of architecture in the UK and Ireland. It will place live projects against an investigation the broader issues and conditions affecting university-based architectural education.

This is the first of two phases of data collection. Taking part in the research at this stage will involve an interview of approximately forty-five minutes, asking a range of questions relating to your experiences, perceptions and opinions on live projects in architectural education, and architectural education in general. Any information you choose to give during the course of this interview will be handled and stored in accordance with the ethical guidelines of SPACE and QUB. With your consent, the interview will be digitally recorded and transcribed. Your identity and the identity of your institution will be anonymised and identified to the researcher by a code. Audio and text files will be password-protected and kept on a password-protected computer. Handwritten notes will be kept in locked storage.

The second phase of data collection - to which you will be invited but not obliged to participate - will, anonymise, collate and thematise the responses of the first phase to represent the both the individual voice and diversity of opinions. In a manner to be confirmed at a later date, you will be invited to read and comment upon this information. We look forward to disseminating the results through peer-reviewed publications and the thesis itself, which we believe will contribute to an under-theorised field of architectural education.



Appendix 4 Respondent consent form

Consent Form

Thank you for your participation in this research. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Researchers at Queen’s University Belfast endeavour to adhere to the highest standards, and as such all information gathered during the course of research will be treated with confidence and shall be governed by the Data Protection Act and the standards for ethical research agreed upon by SPACE and QUB.

To ensure a high quality of research and to ensure the complete comfort of contributors, the following rules will apply to the interview:

1 By agreeing to take part in this research, the participant gives permission for the researcher to use the information generated by you solely for academic purposes; Ph.D. thesis, peer-reviewed journals, conference papers and further research.

2 The anonymity of the interviewee will be protected by the researcher. Each participant and that of his/her organisation will be assigned a code in any publications. Any information divulged must not be used outside the forums stated without the explicit permission of the parties involved.

3 Participation is voluntary and the participant is free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason.

4 The interviewer will respect the interviewee’s right to a point of view and must not use any means to restrict the interviewee from expressing that view.

5 To facilitate accuracy of reporting, the interview will be recorded.

The researcher should ensure that the participant fully understands these rules, and both should sign and date below.

Investigator: James Benedict Brown Participant:! _______________________

Signature:! _______________________ Signature:! _______________________

Date:! ! _______________________ Date:! ! _______________________



Appendix 5 Respondent profiles

Pete (BSc, BArch Hons) is a male BSc Director of Studies (full time) and Teaching Fellow at an

English university. At the time of the interview, he had taught for a total of four years part time

and six years full time, and has in excess of twenty five years of practice experience. He does not

have a contractual research obligation.

Jean (BA Hons, DipArch, PhD) is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At

the time of the interview, she had taught for a total of four years part time and six years full

time. She does not have a contractual research obligation, but has pro-actively negotiated time

and resources to conduct published research within the school.

Steve (BA Hons, PGDip, MArch, DipArch, PhD in progress) is a male Senior Associate Lecturer

(part time, working in practice) at an English university. He is principally the Director of the

school of architecture’s project office, but also teaches. At the time of the interview, he had

taught for a total of twelve years part time. He does not have a contractual research obligation.

Neil (BSc, MArch) is a male Senior Lecturer at an English university. At the time of the interview,

he had taught for a total of thirteen years and has in excess of twenty years of practice

experience. He has both a contractual teaching and research commitment.

Noel is the male Director (full time) of the design/build workshop of a private architecture

school. At the time of the interview, he had taught part time for five years and full time for one

year. He does not have a contractual research obligation.

Paul is a male Senior Lecturer and School Leader in Research and Knowledge Exchange and an

English university. He has both a contractual teaching and research commitment.

Jen is the female Director (full time) of a projects office at an English university. At the time of

the interview, she had taught for six years. She does not have a contractual research obligation.

Fran is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) and BA (Hons) Architecture Course Leader at an

English university. She has a small (<0.1FTE) contractual research obligation



Reid (BA, DipArch Hons) is a male Principal Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At the

time of the interview, he had taught part time for six years and full time for the last six years.

Dean is a male Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. At the time of the interview,

he had taught part time for three years and full time for the last twelve years, and has in excess of

thirty years of practice experience. He works across both the Architecture and Architectural

Technology courses. He does not have a contractual research obligation.

Sue (BA Hons, DipArch, PhD) is a female Senior Lecturer (full time) at an English university. She

is also the school’s Director of Outreach. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time

for five years and full time for the last seven years. She has a contractual research obligation.

Deb (BA Hons, DipArch) is a female Lecturer and Design Tutor (part time) at an English

university. She has also been recently appointed to co-ordinate the school’s annual live project

programme. At the time of the interview, she had taught part time for seventeen years. She does

not have a contractual research obligation, but researches for her own interest and practice.

Lloyd is a male Lecturer (full time) at an Irish institute of technology. At the time of the

interview, he had taught full time for fourteen years. He does not have a contractual research

obligation.

Fred is a male BSc Architecture Course Leader (full time) an an Irish institute of technology. At

the time of the interview, he had taught full time for four and a half years. He does not have a

contractual research obligation.

Joan (BArch Hons, MBA) is a female Head of Department (full time) at an Irish institute of

technology. At the time of the interview, she had taught full time for fifteen years. She does not

have a contractual research obligation.

Joyce (BA, MArch, PhD) is a female Lecturer and BSc Year Leader (full time) at a Northern Irish

university. She has both a contractual teaching and research commitment.



Mark is a Senior Lecturer (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the interview, he had

taught full time for fifteen years. He has previously had (but does not currently have) a

contractual research obligation.

Dan (PhD) is a male Head of School (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the

interview, he had taught part time for one year and full time for the last seventeen years. He has

both a contractual teaching and research commitment.

Jill is a female M.Arch Leader (full time) at a Scottish university. At the time of the interview, she

had taught part time for eight years and full time for the last eight years. She does not have a

contractual research commitment.

Claire (BSc, PgDip, MSc) is a female Teaching Fellow (part time) at a Scottish university. She does

not have a contractual research commitment.

Roz (PhD in progress) is a female Lecturer (full time) at a Welsh university. At the time of the

interview, she had taught part time for five years while in practice in the United States of

America, and full time for the last five years in the UK. She has both a contractual teaching and

research commitment.



Appendix 6 Respondents’ institution profiles

All courses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland listed below are either validated to

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Part I or Part II level, or hold candidate status for

imminent validation. All courses at schools of architecture in the Republic of Ireland are

recognised by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI). For consistency, the term

“school of architecture” has been used throughout the thesis, regardless of whether the course

sits within an institute, department or faculty.

School A is a School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering at a university in Northern

Ireland. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and a two year MArch.

School B is a Department of Architecture within a Faculty of Engineering at a university in

Scotland. It offers a four year BSc (Hons) and a one year PgDip / MArch.

School C is a Department of Architecture and Spatial Design at a university in England. It offers

a three year BA (Hons) and a two year Diploma. It has a chartered projects office / practice within

the school.

School D is a School of Architecture and Visual Arts at a university in England. It offers a three

year BSc (Hons) and a two year Diploma.

School E is a Department of Architecture within an Institute of Technology in Ireland. It offers a

three year BSc (Hons) and a two year BArch (Hons).

School F is a School of Architecture within a College of Engineering and Built Environment

within an Institute of Technology in Ireland. It offers a three year Honours Degree and a two

year Higher Certificate in Design Studies.

School G is a School of Architecture and the Built Environment at a university in Scotland. If

offers a four year BSc (Hons) and a one year MArch.

School H is a School of Architecture within a College of Art, Science & Engineering at a

university in Scotland. It offers a three year BArch and a two year MArch.



School I is a School of Environment and Development within a Faculty of Development and

Society at a university in England. It offers a BSc (Hons) in Architecture and Environmental

Design and a two year Diploma. At the time of the interview, the Diploma has candidate course

status for RIBA Part II exemption.

School J is a School of Architecture within a Faculty of Social Sciences at a university in England.

It offers a three year BA (Hons) in Architecture and a two year MArch. It has a non-chartered

projects office / research consultancy within the school.

School K is a School of Architecture at a university in Wales. It offers a three year BSc (Hons) and

a two year MArch (the first year of which is spent in practice).

School L is a Department of Planning and Architecture within a School of the Built and Natural

Environment at a university in England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) in Architecture and

Planning and a BEng in Architecture and Engineering, as well as a two year Bachelor of

Architecture.

School M is a Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering within a Faculty of Engineering

and Design at a university in England. It offers a four year BSc (Hons) Architecture sandwich,

with placements in years two and three, and a two year MArch, with the first semester spent in

placement.

School N is a School of Architecture and Design within a Faculty of Arts at a university in

England. It offers a three year BA (Hons) and a two year BArch.

School O is a private architecture school in England. It offers a one year foundation, a three year

bachelors-level course, a two year diploma and a sixteen month Masters. Degrees are conferred

by the Open University.

School P is a School of Architecture at a university in England. It offers a three BA (Hons) and a

two year Diploma. It has a chartered projects office / practice within the school.

School Q is a joint School of Architecture of two universities in England. It offers a three year BA

(Hons) and a two year BArch that are conferred by both institutions.



Appendix 7 Constructing the interview schedule

Background information

No. Question Purpose

0.1 How many years have you been

involved in architectural education?

Questions 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 were intended verify the

background/biographical information gathered before the

interviews (see appendix 5 for interview respondents’

profiles). On occasion, 0.3 served as the first opportunity for

the respondent to speak at length about their opinions and

experiences of live projects.

0.2 Has that involvement primarily been

at full or part time?







0.3 Have you had any direct personal

experience of live projects, either as a

student or tutor?







Architectural education


1.1 The five year programme of

university-based architectural

education, with additional practice

experience, is now the established

structure in this country. Based on

your experiences, are you satisfied

with the length, structure and shape

architectural education in this

country?

The literature review found various positions relating to the

“post-Schön” design studio in architectural education, namely

critiques of the structuralist pedagogies of Donald Schön by

Eraut (1994), Till (2005), Usher et al, (1997), Waks (2001),

Webster (2008) versus the endorsements of the “Schönian”

design studio, such as Cunningham (2005).




1.2 What advantages do you believe a

university-based education has over its

predecessor, a completely practice-

based apprenticeship?

Question 1.2 sought to prompt and exploration of the link

between education and practice, for instance are we educating

primarily for practice? Concurrent with these research were a

number of high profile public debates about the role of

architectural education in the changing context of higher

education, notably that surrounding the Pavilion of Protest

(2011) exhibition at the RIBA.

1.3 Thinking first about your teaching,

what are the greatest external

pressures (over which you have no

control) which threaten to affect the

quality of your work?

Lonergan & Andersen write that “every pedagogical choice has

to take account of its restrictions, limitations and

constraints.” (1998, p. 72) Questions 1.3 and 1.4 sought to

establish whether the respondents’ experiences of higher

education mirror concerns regarding (for example) HE

funding discussed in the literature, and which may in turn

draw into question traditional educational practices. Issues

affecting HE that have been discussed in the literature

include: how, during a period of sustained growth in student

numbers from the 1960s to the present day, HE participation

has been disproportionately high amongst students from

richer rather than poorer background Blanden & Machin,

2004); changing student attitudes towards learning and HE

(Altbach, 2002); larger cohorts, such as that described by

McGonnigle (2005); and the reduction of per capita resources

for HE teaching (Bonnen, 1998; McGonnigle, 2005; Rooney,

2005).

The close inter-relationship of the broader issues affecting HE

and community-based and outreach activities is stated by

Bonnen, who writes that “over the last century and a half, as

society and its expectations of the university have changed,

the university has evolved by adapting to society’s needs. The

period since World War II has been one of unprecedented

growth in the scale and scope of higher education. Despite an

expected future expansion of the student-age cohort,

university capacities are now constrained by limited and even

declining real or inflation-adjusted resources. From these

changes in society and the university, many of our current

problems flow. It is in this changing context that the outreach

role of the university is now evolving.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 37)




1.4 Thinking now about your research,

what are the greatest external

pressures (over which you have no

control) which threaten to affect the

quality of your work?

establish whether the respondents’ experiences of higher

education mirror concerns regarding (for example) HE

funding discussed in the literature, and which may in turn

draw into question traditional educational practices. Issues

affecting HE that have been discussed in the literature

include: how, during a period of sustained growth in student

numbers from the 1960s to the present day, HE participation

has been disproportionately high amongst students from

richer rather than poorer background Blanden & Machin,

2004); changing student attitudes towards learning and HE

(Altbach, 2002); larger cohorts, such as that described by

McGonnigle (2005); and the reduction of per capita resources

for HE teaching (Bonnen, 1998; McGonnigle, 2005; Rooney,

2005).

The close inter-relationship of the broader issues affecting HE

and community-based and outreach activities is stated by

Bonnen, who writes that “over the last century and a half, as

society and its expectations of the university have changed,

the university has evolved by adapting to society’s needs. The

period since World War II has been one of unprecedented

growth in the scale and scope of higher education. Despite an

expected future expansion of the student-age cohort,

university capacities are now constrained by limited and even

declining real or inflation-adjusted resources. From these

changes in society and the university, many of our current

problems flow. It is in this changing context that the outreach

role of the university is now evolving.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 37)



The live project


2.1 In the context of architectural

education, how would you describe a

live project?

The literature reveals some divergence of opinion about what

constitutes a live project, although variations exist around a

general theme: namely, a teaching project that brings

university-based students of architecture into contact with

one or more aspects of the reality of architectural practice: a

real client, a real outcome; and/or a real budget. (Sara, 2006;

Watt & Cottrell, 2006; Chiles & Holder, 2008)

2.2 Thinking about live projects in

architectural education, can you name

three schools or programmes, either in

this country or abroad, which you

would regard as being influential?

Questions 2.2 and 2.3 are broadly similar to those asked by

Toker (2007) in his survey of community design practitioners,

and are asked in order to establish which particular live

projects or live project programmes are influential.

2.3 How did you come to know about these

projects?

Questions 2.2 and 2.3 are broadly similar to those asked by

Toker (2007) in his survey of community design practitioners,

and are asked in order to establish which particular live

projects or live project programmes are influential.

2.4 Do live projects exist in disciplines

other than architecture?

Questions 2.4 and 2.5 are to determine whether live projects

are seen as unique to architecture or similar to other

disciplines and pedagogies, and to determine whether the link

between architectural education and architectural practice is

perceived as being unique. The participation of students in

actual patient care is, for instance, integral to the teaching of

medicine (Jagsi & Lehmann, 2004).

2.5 If live projects in other disciplines are

not always called live projects, what

else might they be known as?

Questions 2.4 and 2.5 are to determine whether live projects

are seen as unique to architecture or similar to other

disciplines and pedagogies, and to determine whether the link

between architectural education and architectural practice is

perceived as being unique. The participation of students in

actual patient care is, for instance, integral to the teaching of

medicine (Jagsi & Lehmann, 2004).



Live projects and their location / timing in the curriculum


3.1 At which stage or level of a five year

course in architecture do you think are

live projects most effective?

Questions 3.1 and 3.2 are asked in order to establish whether

live projects and their engagement with the reality of practice

can bring too much complexity to the learning process.

Writing with regard to medical education, Dornan & Bundy

write that “without early experience, the curriculum was

socially isolating and divorced from clinical practice. The

abruptness of students’ transition to the clinical environment

in year 3 generated positive and negative emotions. The

rationale for early experience would be to ease the transition;

orientate the curriculum towards the social context of

practice; make students more confident to approach patients;

motivate them; increase their awareness of themselves and

others; strengthen, deepen, and contextualise their theoretical

knowledge; teach intellectual skills; strengthen learning of

behavioural and social sciences; and teach them about the role

of health professionals.” (Dornan & Bundy, 2004, p. 834)

3.2 What is the optimum length of time

for a live project to run?

Questions 3.1 and 3.2 are asked in order to establish whether

live projects and their engagement with the reality of practice

can bring too much complexity to the learning process.

Writing with regard to medical education, Dornan & Bundy

write that “without early experience, the curriculum was

socially isolating and divorced from clinical practice. The

abruptness of students’ transition to the clinical environment

in year 3 generated positive and negative emotions. The

rationale for early experience would be to ease the transition;

orientate the curriculum towards the social context of

practice; make students more confident to approach patients;

motivate them; increase their awareness of themselves and

others; strengthen, deepen, and contextualise their theoretical

knowledge; teach intellectual skills; strengthen learning of

behavioural and social sciences; and teach them about the role

of health professionals.” (Dornan & Bundy, 2004, p. 834)

3.3 Does the preparation before a live

project require more or less staff input

than comparable studio-based

projects?

Considering Lonergan & Anderson’s (op cit) concern

regarding the resourcing of live projects, questions 3.3, 3.4

and 3.5 seek to prompt a discussion about how live projects are

resourced and what their requirements are. Bonnen

emphasises that “the design of [outreach] organizational

strategies is too dependent on the specific capacities and

environment of the university, and on the nature of the

problem and sector of society with which the university is

collaborating in some problem-solving effort.” (Bonnen,

1998, p. 63)

3.4 Does the running of a live project

require more or less staff input than

comparable studio-based projects?










1998, p. 63)

3.5 Does a live project cost more or less to

run than comparable studio-based

projects?










1998, p. 63)




3.6 Do you regard live projects as

primarily teaching or research

activities?

This research was conducted in an academic milieu preceding

the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE)

2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment of

research in all UK higher education institutions. This question

seeks to investigate whether live projects may serve both

teaching and research agendas. Additionally, Bonnen writes

that “one of the clearest reasons why university outreach

organizations fail is that they do not command enough

knowledge of the problem addressed. It is a mistake to

construct a university-outreach effort without linking it to or

developing a relevant research base within the

university.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 66)

3.7 In order to make room for the live

projects in your curriculum, what

other activities, courses or modules

were changed, moved or replaced?

This question seeks to ask that if live projects were new to the

curriculum, what did they replace? Are they considered an

improvement over what they replaced?

3.8 Was the live project programme

developed as a response to any

particular issue?

An expansion of the previous question.



Live projects and their stakeholders


4.1 From the point of view of the school as

a whole, what are the pros and cons of

including live projects in the

curriculum?

Questions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 invited respondents to consider the

advantages and disadvantages of live project participation

from the perspectives of the three major participant /

stakeholder figures.

4.2 From the point of view of the students,

what are the pros and cons of including

live projects in their curriculum?





4.3 From the point of view of the clients,

what are the pros and cons being

involved in a live project?





4.4 If students can choose between being

involved in ‘live’ and ‘non-live’

projects, what motivates them to be

involved with live projects?

This question seeks to explore perceptions of student

motivations.

4.5 What motivates clients to be involved

with live projects?

There is little in the literature to suggest what motivates

clients to participate in live projects, and only anecdotal

evidence found by the researcher that it is in order “to get

something for nothing.” Brand & Rincón write that “we

wanted to deliver a good product in the end. At its extreme,

[ this concern ] can result in outright exploitation of cheap

student labour, a danger discussed by Higgins and Simpson

(1997) and Kent et al. (1997).” (Brand & Rincón, 2007, pp.

45-6)

...continues




In literature surrounding medical education there is a more

sophisticated discussion of the ethical issues surrounding

patient involvement in the education of future practitioners.

The following quotes are indicative but also serve to

emphasise the difference between the professions of medicine

and architecture.

“Altruism, rather than perceived benefit to self, seems to be

the primary motivation for participation in medical

education. Self interest may play a larger role in patients’

motivations for participating in research than in the case of

education, and this difference has important

implications.” (Jagsi & Lehmann, 2004, p. 333)

“While there are undoubtedly parallels between patient

involvement in medical education and in research, the

differences between the two seem to me to be more profound

than Jagsi and Lehmann suppose ... Where medical education

is concerned, the differences in attitude between patients

being treated by the NHS [in the UK] or Medicaid [in the USA]

and those being treated privately seem to me to be entirely

understandable. I am sure that it has chiefly to do with the

non-paying patient’s sense of moral responsibility to “give

something back,” as against the private patient’s perception

that he or she has paid for a “private” appointment.” (Lapsley,

2004, p. 334)




4.6 How do you mediate between the

expectations of the client(s) and the

students?

On the subject of mediating between students and clients,

Brand & Rincón write (with my emphasis) that “this is a

question of prioritization: does the students’ learning

experience matter more than the client's legitimate interests

or vice versa? [ Professor Steven Moore, Professor in the

School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin ],

the co-instructor of the third semester, referred to this

problem as an ‘inherent allergy between teaching and creating

a product.’” (Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 46) Is there such an

“inherent allergy”?

4.7 Can you recall any live projects where

this has been successful?

Questions 4.7 and 4.8 seeks to solicit specific examples to

illustrate the issues raised in the preceding questions.

4.8 Can you recall any live projects where

this has been difficult?

Questions 4.7 and 4.8 seeks to solicit specific examples to

illustrate the issues raised in the preceding questions.

Before the live project


5.1 How are potential live project clients

identified?

During the author’s own participation in a live project at the

University of Sheffield in 2006, it was found that the majority

of recent live projects were situated on sites and in

communities within a short distance of the procuring tutor’s

home.

5.2 Who is normally responsible for

identifying potential live projects?

During the author’s own participation in a live project at the

University of Sheffield in 2006, it was found that the majority

of recent live projects were situated on sites and in

communities within a short distance of the procuring tutor’s

home.

5.3 For what reasons might a proposed live

project not be taken forward?

What criteria are applied to the selection of live projects?




5.4 Are public or private clients better

suited for live projects?

The author’s own experience of live projects (at the University

of Sheffield, 2006-8) provided widespread anecdotal evidence

of a preference for public or third-sector (i.e. non-profit)

clients at his own institution. Is this attitude common across

other institutions?

5.5 Who is normally responsible for

designing the live project brief?

The respondents have been chosen for the sample because of

their roles as pedagogical decision makers. Therefore what

processes (and what people) are involved in the creation of a

live project? Kent et al write that “the objectives of any

fieldwork exercise need to be clearly identified, since they

condition the type of fieldwork and its success as an

educational exercise.” (Kent et al., 1997, p. 319)

5.6 Should students and clients be part of

that process together?

Continuing from question 5.5, this question seeks to explicitly

frame the roles of the students and clients in the process of

designing a live project. Are live projects collaborative at all

stages? Kirby & Hollick write that pedagogues should “listen to

the students. At postgraduate level they have important

contributions to make. Do not, though, allow them to dictate

the agenda. Change does not come from reinforcing existing

positions.” (Kirby & Hollick, 2004, p. 3, cited in Brand &

Rincón, 2007, pp. 56-7)



After the live project


6.1 How does a live project conclude? Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live

projects’ conclusions planned for, whether live projects are

evaluated and whether such evaluations are handled formally.

Beamont lists questions raised through her research process

into live projects at Sheffield, including the following under

‘Post Live Project (Longevity)’: “What are its lasting

contributions to society and are these contributions as short-

lived as the projects themselves?’ and ‘What happens after a

live project dies?’ (Beamont, 2008, p. 97)

6.2 Can a live project be extended beyond

its planned conclusion?

Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live









6.3 Who manages the live project if it does

continue?

Questions 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 seek to establish whether live












6.4 Should student’s live project work be

assessed?

Beamont’s questions for further research included: “Should

the assessment involve the client?” “Should the assessment be

student-led?” and “What is the level of success in the Live

Projects and how can this be monitored? (Beamont, 2008, p.

97) On the subject of assessment, Lonergan & Andersen write

that “it could be argued that the evidence of learning achieved

through field-based activities may deserve to be presented or

demonstrated in a variety of different ways, many of which do

not lend themselves to being assessed.” (Lonergan &

Andersen, 1998, p. 75) Considering whether live projects or

education in the field might help counter the anecdotally

widespread condition of grade-chasing amongst students,

Grundy-Warr writes that “field-studies seem to help students

to become less obsessed with grades as they ... become

immersed in teamwork, research and projects.” (Grundy-

Warr, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Brand & Rincón, 2007, p. 50)

6.5 Who leads and participates in the

assessment of students’ live project

work?

















6.6 Should clients or students participate

in the academic assessment of

students’ live project work?

















6.7 How are the live projects themselves

evaluated after their completion?

Questions 6.7 and 6.8 are prompted by the observation of

Kent et al who note that “debriefing of students is a critical but

often neglected part of student fieldwork.” (Kent et al.,1997, p.

322)6.8 Should clients or students participate

in the evaluation of live projects?

Questions 6.7 and 6.8 are prompted by the observation of

Kent et al who note that “debriefing of students is a critical but

often neglected part of student fieldwork.” (Kent et al.,1997, p.

322)




6.9 What skills do live projects develop in

your students that other projects

might not develop?

Questions 6.9 and 6.10 relate to perceived changes in the

function of higher education, and how these have impacted

the development of curricula across all disciplines. Altbach

writes that “education is becoming an internationally traded

commodity. No longer is it seen primarily as a set of skills,

attitudes, and values required for citizenship and effective

participation in modern society—a key contribution to the

common good of any society. Rather, it is increasingly seen as

a commodity to be purchased by a consumer in order to build

a ‘skill set’ to be used in the marketplace or a product to be

bought and sold by multinational corporations, academic

institutions that have transmogrified themselves into

businesses, and other providers.” (Altbach, 2002)

Likewise Bonnen notes that” “knowledge has become a highly

valued input in the production processes of society, largely as

a consequence of the application of science to the activities of

man. Whereas university education had previously been

viewed in the U.S. primarily as a cultural or a consumer good

that might advantage an individual, it now tends also to be

viewed as a producer’s good that is necessary to the

functioning of society. This change has given rise to research

and development activities in universities and in industry

that early on in the information revolution were termed “the

knowledge industry.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 43)

6.10 What skills do live projects not develop

in your students?

Questions 6.9 and 6.10 relate to perceived changes in the

function of higher education, and how these have impacted

the development of curricula across all disciplines. Altbach

writes that “education is becoming an internationally traded

commodity. No longer is it seen primarily as a set of skills,

attitudes, and values required for citizenship and effective

participation in modern society—a key contribution to the

common good of any society. Rather, it is increasingly seen as

a commodity to be purchased by a consumer in order to build

a ‘skill set’ to be used in the marketplace or a product to be

bought and sold by multinational corporations, academic

institutions that have transmogrified themselves into

businesses, and other providers.” (Altbach, 2002)

Likewise Bonnen notes that” “knowledge has become a highly

valued input in the production processes of society, largely as

a consequence of the application of science to the activities of

man. Whereas university education had previously been

viewed in the U.S. primarily as a cultural or a consumer good

that might advantage an individual, it now tends also to be

viewed as a producer’s good that is necessary to the

functioning of society. This change has given rise to research

and development activities in universities and in industry

that early on in the information revolution were termed “the

knowledge industry.” (Bonnen, 1998, p. 43)

6.11 Does the university as an institution

wholly support the live projects?

A closing question to the section, intended to establish

whether live projects (as pedagogical experiments or

established features of the curricula) are supported by those in

HE management.



Concluding questions


7.1 Are there any matters relating to live

projects and architectural education

that we haven’t discussed today, which

you would you like discuss?

Wrap-up questions, intended to catch any missed points.

7.2 Are there any questions that I haven’t

asked you, which you believe I have

overlooked?

Wrap-up questions, intended to catch any missed points.



Appendix 8 Comparison of pilot and revised interview schedules

Pilot interview schedule

(questions asked in numerical order)

Revised interview schedule


Notes

0 background information Section 0 added to provide important comparable background questions. Also used to help verify pre-interview research and construct accurate respondent profiles.

0.1 How many years have you been involved in architectural education?

Section 0 added to provide important comparable background questions. Also used to help verify pre-interview research and construct accurate respondent profiles.

0.2 Has that involvement primarily been at full or part time?


0.3 Have you had any direct personal experience of live projects, either as a student or tutor?


2 the relationship between architectural education and architectural practice

1 architectural education Sections 1 & 2 re-ordered in revised interview schedule in order to foreground broader perceptions of architectural education before focusing on the live project.

2.1 The five year structure of architectural education, with additional practice experience, is now the established structure for architectural education in this country. Are you satisfied with the length, structure and shape of architectural education?

1.1 The five year programme of university-based architectural education, with additional practice experience, is now the established structure in this country. Based on your experiences, are you satisfied with the length, structure and shape architectural education in this country?

Minor re-wording for purposes of

clarity.

2.2 What advantages do you believe a university-based education has over its predecessor, a completely practice-based apprenticeship?

1.2 What advantages do you believe a university-based education has over its predecessor, a completely practice-based apprenticeship?

No revisions.

2.3 What are the greatest threats or pressures which threaten to affect the quality of your teaching or research over which you have no control?

1.3 Thinking first about your teaching, what are the greatest external pressures (over which you have no control) which threaten to affect the quality of your work?

Minor re-wording for purposes of clarity. Question separated out to distinguish teaching and research activities.







Notes

pressures which threaten to affect the quality of your teaching or research over which you have no control?

1.4 Thinking now about your research, what are the greatest external pressures (over which you have no control) which threaten to affect the quality of your work?

clarity. Question separated out to distinguish teaching and research activities.

1 definitions and clarification 2 live projects in architectural education

Sections 1 & 2 re-ordered in revised interview schedule in order to foreground broader perceptions of architectural education before focusing on the live project.


education, how would you describe

a live project?


education, how would you describe

a live project?

No revisions.


architectural education, can you

name three schools or

programmes, either in this country

or abroad which you would regard

as being influential.


architectural education, can you

name three schools or

programmes, either in this country

or abroad, which you would regard

as being influential.

No revisions.

1.3 How do you know about these

projects?

2.3 How did you come to know

about these projects?


clarity.

1.4 Do live projects exist in

disciplines other than architecture?

2.4 Do live projects exist in

disciplines other than architecture?

No revisions.

1.5 If these projects according to

these definitions are not always

defined as live projects, what else

might they be known as?

2.5 If live projects in other

disciplines are not always called

live projects, what else might they

be known as?


clarity.

3 live projects and their location /

timing

3 live projects and their location /

timing







Notes

3.1 At which stage or level of a five

year course in architecture are live

projects most effective or useful?

3.1 At which stage or level of a five

year course in architecture do you

think are live projects most

effective?


clarity.

3.3 What is the optimum length of

time for a live project to run?

3.2 What is the optimum length of

time for a live project to run?

No revisions. Note that pilot

interview schedule had no question

3.2.

3.4 Does the preparation of a live

project require more or less staff

input than comparable studio-

based projects?

3.3 Does the preparation before a

live project require more or less

staff input than comparable

studio-based projects?

No revisions.

3.5 Does the running of a live



based projects?

3.4 Does the running of a live



based projects?

No revisions.

3.6 Does a live project cost more or

less to run than comparable studio-

based projects?

3.5 Does a live project cost more or

less to run than comparable studio-

based projects?

No revisions.



activities?



activities?

No revisions.

3.8 Did the live projects replace

something else in the curriculum,

or were they in addition to it?

3.7 In order to make room for the

live projects in your curriculum,

what other activities, courses or

modules were changed, moved or

replaced?


clarity.







Notes

3.9 Was the live project

programme developed as a

response to any particular issue?

3.8 Was the live project

programme developed as a

response to any particular issue?

No revisions.

4 live projects and their stakeholders

4 live projects and their stakeholders


(questions asked in numerical

order)



order)

Notes

4.1a Can you suggest how a school

of architecture might benefit from

the inclusion of live projects in its

curriculum?

4.1 From the point of view of the

school as a whole, what are the pros

and cons of including live projects

in the curriculum?

Questions 4.1a and 4.1b merged for

clarity and to invite respondents to

weigh up advantages and

disadvantages at the same time,

perhaps suggesting nature of any

compromise.4.1b Can you suggest how a school

of architecture might suffer with

the inclusion of live projects in its

curriculum?


school as a whole, what are the pros

and cons of including live projects

in the curriculum?






compromise.

4.2a Can you suggest how students

might benefit from the inclusion

of live projects in their studies?


students, what are the pros and

cons of including live projects in

their curriculum?






compromise.4.2b Can you suggest how students

might suffer with the inclusion of

live projects in their studies?


students, what are the pros and

cons of including live projects in

their curriculum?






compromise.

4.3a Can you suggest how live

project clients might benefit from

the working with students of

architecture?


clients, what are the pros and cons

being involved in a live project?






compromise.





order)



order)

Notes

4.3b Can you suggest how live

project clients might suffer the

working with students of

architecture?


clients, what are the pros and cons

being involved in a live project?






compromise.

4.4 What motivates students to be


4.4 If students can choose between

being involved in ‘live’ and ‘non-

live’ projects, what motivates them

to be involved with live projects?


clarity.

4.5 What motivates clients to be


4.5 What motivates clients to be


No revisions.

4.6 How do you mediate between

the expectations of the client(s) and

the students?

4.6 How do you mediate between

the expectations of the client(s) and

the students?

No revisions.

4.7 Can you recall any instances in

this school where this has been

successful?

4.7 Can you recall any live projects

where this has been successful?


clarity.

4.8 Can you recall any instances in

this school where this has been

difficult?

4.8 Can you recall any live projects

where this has been difficult?


clarity.

6 before the live project 5 before the live project

6.1 How are potential live projects

identified?

5.1 How are potential live project

clients identified?

No revisions.

6.2 Who is normally responsible

for identifying potential live

projects?


for identifying potential live

projects?

No revisions.

6.3 For what reasons might a

proposed live project not be taken

forward?

5.3 For what reasons might a

proposed live project not be taken

forward?

No revisions.





order)



order)

Notes

6.4 Are public or private clients

better suited for live projects?

5.4 Are public or private clients

better suited for live projects?

No revisions.


for designing the brief?


for designing the live project brief?


clarity.

6.5 Should students and clients

part of that process together?

5.6 Should students and clients be

part of that process together?

No revisions.

7 after the live project 6 after the live project

7.1 How does a live project

conclude?

6.1 How does a live project

conclude?

No revisions.

7.2 Can a live project be extended

beyond its planned conclusion?

6.2 Can a live project be extended

beyond its planned conclusion?

No revisions.

7.3 Who manages the live project if

it does continue?

6.3 Who manages the live project if

it does continue?

No revisions.

7.6 Should live projects be assessed? 6.4 Should student’s live project

work be assessed?


clarity.

7.7 Who leads and participates in

the assessment of live projects?

6.5 Who leads and participates in

the assessment of students’ live

project work?


clarity.

7.8 Can clients benefit from

participating in the academic

assessment of students’ work?

6.6 Should clients or students

participate in the academic

assessment of students’ live project

work?


clarity.

7.4 How are live projects evaluated

after their completion?

6.7 How are the live projects

themselves evaluated after their

completion?


clarity.





order)



order)

Notes

7.5 Are clients or students part of

that process?

6.8 Should clients or students

participate in the evaluation of live

projects?

Minor re-wording to invite broader

discussion of personal “should/

should not” hypotheses.

7.9 What skills do live projects

develop in your students?


develop in your students that other

projects might not develop?

Re-wording for purposes of clarity.

7.10 Does participation in live

projects enhance your students’

skills?


develop in your students that other

projects might not develop?


7.10 Does participation in live

projects enhance your students’

skills?

6.10 What skills do live projects not

develop in your students?


7.11 Does the university as an

institution wholly support the live

projects?

6.11 Does the university as an

institution wholly support the live

projects?

No revisions.

7 conclusion Section 7 was added to provide formal “catch-all” questions for respondent to volunteer any information or opinion not solicited by the researcher.

7.1 Are there any matters relating

to live projects and architectural

education that we haven’t

discussed today, which you would

you like discuss?

Section 7 was added to provide formal “catch-all” questions for respondent to volunteer any information or opinion not solicited by the researcher.

7.2 Are there any questions that I

haven’t asked you, which you

believe I have overlooked?

Section 7 added to provide formal “catch-all” questions for respondent to volunteer any information or opinion not solicited by the researcher.



Appendix 9 Concepts

Category identifier(& number of occurrences)

Concept identifier(& number of occurrences)

Concept

FLEX (14) STUD (6) The design studio gives architecture a unique opportunity to experiment with live projects

FLEX (14)

FLEX (5) The flexibility of architecture within academia

FLEX (14)

KITE (1) Schools of architecture using live projects “to fly kites” in terms of testing possibilities

FLEX (14)

TIMI (1) Live projects test and propose alternative ways of timing and locating teaching contact hours

FLEX (14)

INHE (1) Studio is inherently “inefficient” compared to other university disciplines

- ACCE (9) The client must accept certain conditions

ETHO (9) ETHO (8) Live projects being representative or indicative of a school’s ethos or agenda

ETHO (9)

IDEO (1) Can live projects ever represent or reinforce an entire school’s ideology?

- PUTT (7) Differing approaches to relating to architectural practices: “we’re not putting architects out of work”

SELF (7) FOCU (3) Short projects that counteract the architectural culture of working up to the last minute

SELF (7)

LAST (3) Live projects countering (or supporting?) the culture of architecture students working up until the last minute

SELF (7)

SELF (1) Countering the self-referential nature of the studio

VALU (7) DIFF (2) Live projects reveal and value different skills allowing different students to be successful / valued

VALU (7)

VALUE (2) Live projects disrupt, challenge and propose alternatives to normal academic value systems.

VALU (7)

MEAN (1) Connecting students’ perceptions / feelings of project being meaningful or useful to project success

VALU (7)

PREF (1) Clients and tutors (the academics) may have different preferences about which is the best project and why. What are the implications for assessment?

VALU (7)

SERI (1) Students appreciating / ________ that their work in live projects is taken seriously by the clients and stakeholders





Concept

- PUTT (6) The unexpected domino effect of live projects

GROU (6) GROU (5) The implications of a client representative not adequately briefing, preparing or engaging other stakeholders in the client group

GROU (6)

RESP (1) Whose responsibility is it - the client, academics or student - to prepare and brief the whole client group

- OPPO (6) Distinguishing between schools that have an established live project infrastructure (or project office) and projects that are “opportunistic”

- ABST (5) Circumstances and projects when students benefit from looking at something in complete abstraction

- ACAD (5) What makes a live project academic

- INFL (5) Live Projects influencing decision makers

- MATU (5) Understanding students’ maturity

- RIBA (5) The relationship to the RIBA / ARB criteria

- BUIL (4) The importance some academics place on the intention to build in their definitions of live projects

- CONT (4) The continuity of primary to secondary to tertiary education, and the relationship specifically between tertiary and secondary levels

- MANA (4) Managing reality, engaging with reality or surrendering to it?

- AVOI (3) Avoiding construction or build projects (as opposed to hypothetical or envisioning projects) because of the complexities of planning permission, building regulations, health and safety, insurance etc

- HOBB (3) Without an infrastructure, staff-led or staff-driven live projects can become hobby horses

- HOSP (3) “You don’t have hospitals of architecture”

- INDI (3) Preferring to work with individual/private or group/public/third sector clients

- MEDI (3) Varying degrees of mediation by the academic staff

ORDE (3) ORDE (2) Preferring order and control of the abstract design studio to ____________ of live projects





Concept

ORDE (3)

UNCE (1) Live projects reject an abstract project’s certainty and embrace a client’s uncertainty

- PART (3) We are not adequately addressing the issues relating to participation in live projects

- PEER (3) Skepticism towards peer learning and review based on teacher’s own experience of one-to-one teaching and mentoring

- QUES (3) Questioning own definition of live projects in architectural education (perhaps because of this survey)

- ALTE (2) Expressing a desire for some alternative path to architectural qualification

- BACK (2) Going back, with or without students, re-visiting or doing post-occupancy studies

- CANN (2) Being canny about getting Research out of live projects

- CHAL (2) Risk in live projects is that (less confident?) students will not challenge the brief or client

- COMM (2) Clients must commit something to a project

- DESI (2) Design quality suffers as a result of engaging in the pragmatics of live or built projects (not as good as in studio)

- DETA (2) University strategies for staffing (fewer p/t staff and more f/t academic posts) is leading to an increasing detachment of architectural education from practice

- EROS (2) On the erosion of the architect’s practice by new disciplines

ETHI (2) ETHI (1) Ethical problems cannot be taught in the abstract design studioETHI (2)

SOCI (1) By their very nature, live projects raise questions about the social responsibility of architects and of architecture.

- INTE (2) Employing interns (students) during the summer months who can earn enough to pay their fees

- OUTR (2) The role of the university in relation to communities, outside bodies

- PERC (2) Live projects might be perceived as requiring less time, input and/or structure than they actually do





Concept

- POLI (2) Situating live projects in a broader political landscape of higher education

- POWE (2) Where does the power lie in a live project?

- REJE (2) Rejecting the client’s brief and/or requirements

- RESE (2) Contractual research and teaching obligations lead academics to focus their live projects on particular subjects

- SEPA (2) The tendency of architecture to separate academia and practice into two separate endeavours

- SHAD (2) “shades of live”

- TANG (2) The tangibility of live projects

- ANAG (1) Managing the expectations of the clients and stakeholders

- CHOO (1) Students choosing projects because of site, content, etc; not necessarily because the project is live

- CONS (1) Normative architectural education designs without constraints. Live projects re-introduce these constraints.

- ENGA (1) Students demonstrate a greater degree of engagement when they have chosen their own client

- FREE (1) By not charging for live project services, client gratitude lessens problems and reduces risk

- GOOD (1) What is a good live project client?

- INOU (1) Embedding the live project into the curriculum (or vice versa) or using a live project as a special occasion “outside” the studio

- IREL (1) Maybe Ireland can offer insights to UK, repeating the situation of recession causing graduates to take time away

- LANG (1) Live projects build knowledge in a way that couldn’t be formalised in a classroom situation

- LECT (1) The less live a project is, the more like a lecturer the students will treat the client

- LEVE (1) A non-hierarchical “level” relationship can exist between client and students





Concept

- NORI (1) Learning from talking to clients the need to question everything, there is no right answer

- OUTP (1) Seeing and understanding other schools’ live practices through their output

- PRAC (1) Questioning the emphasis in UG architectural education towards normative professional practice (when the majority of UG graduates don’t become architects)

- PRIO (1) Are the priorities of live project clients close to the issues of interest to students?

- PROB (1) Who sets the design problem?

- PUBL (1) Architecture “is a very public activity”

- RACT (1) Using a contract to agree / commit with client

- SCAL (1) The scale, function and programme of the live project is determined by the limitations of the academic year cycle

- SOCC (1) Using live projects as a means of engendering social change, or introducing narrow social mix of students to wider social realities

- SUST (1) Questioning the sustainability of live projects and project offices

- WELL (1) Wellbeing, welfare and health and social issues as the common thread between disciplines

- YEAR (1) Live projects are shoe-horned into the ~ 30 week academic year. This constrains possibilities, rules out longer / built projects



Appendix 10 Sample coded transcript 1



Appendix 11 Sample coded transcript 2



Appendix 12 Sample concept notebook pages

These pages have been anonymised. Concepts indexed by four-character indentifier; codes listed

under concept title with (redacted) respondent identifier and page number.



Appendix 13 Bibliography

ABDULLAH, F., 2006. An evaluation of problem based learning in architectural education. PhD

edn. University of Strathclyde.

ABRAMSON, D.B., 2005. The Studio Abroad as a Mode of Transcultural Engagement in Urban

Planning Education: A Reflection on Ten Years of Sino-Canadian Collaboration. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 25(1), pp. 89-102.

AHEARN, A., 2005. Constructionarium: Building to Learn. CEBE Transactions, 2(1), pp. 6-16.

AHRENTZEN, S. and ANTHONY, K.H., 1993. Sex, Stars, and Studios: A Look at Gendered

Educational Practices in Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), pp. 11-29.

AIAS, ed, 2008. AIAS Issue Brief on Architectural Education. Washington DC: AIAS.

ALBRECHT, J., 1988. Towards a Theory of Participation in Architecture: An Examination of

Humanistic Planning Theories. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(1), pp. 24-31.

ALLEY, S. and SMITH, M., 27 January, 2004-last update, Timeline: tuition fees [The Guardian],

[Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students [1

June, 2011].

ALLWINKLE, S., 2008. Architectural Technology 50 years on: Oxford to Oxford, SAAT to CIAT.

In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in

architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 267-272.

ALTBACH, P.G., 2002. Knowledge and Education as International Commodities : The Collapse

of the Common Good. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text001.htm

edn. Boston: Boston College.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS (AIAS), 2002. The Redesign of

Studio Culture - a report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington DC: AIAS.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, June 2001, 2001-last update, Code of Medical Ethics

[AMA], [Online]. Available: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-

ethics/code-medical-ethics.shtml [8/9, 2010].

ANON, 1973. Bristol sets a new pattern for further education. Architects Journal, (25 April), pp.

964-965.

ANON, 1962. Birmingham School of Architecture. The Builder, (15 June), pp. 1238-1241.

ANON, 1961. Joint education in building. Architect & Building News, (3 May), pp. 573-574.

ANON, 1951. Houses at Rednal designed by students (third year) of the Birmingham School of

Architecture. The Builder, (14 December), pp. 830.

ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BOARD, nd, The Architects Act 1997: Q&A. Available: http://

www.arb.org.uk/about/the-architects-act-1997-qanda.shtml [4/8/2009, 2009].



ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION, 2000. Creative spaces: a toolkit for participatory urban

design/architecture. London: Architecture Foundation.

ARNSTEIN, S.R., 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, (June), pp. 216-224.

ARONOWITZ, S. and GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Postmodern Education. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota.

ARONOWITZ, S. and GIROUX, H.A., 1986. Education under siege: the conservative, liberal and

radical debate over schooling. New York: Routledge.

ASCHER-BARNSTONE, D., 2002. Building Designs for Living: Studio 804 University of Kansas.

Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), pp. 186-193.

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE, 2009. Guide to Architecture

Schools. 8th edn. Washington DC: ACSA.

AU, W., 2007. Epistemology of the Oppressed: The Dialectics of Paulo Freire's Theory of

Knowledge. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2),.

AUSBURG, T., 2006. Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies.

2 edn. New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

AWAN, N., SCHNEIDER, T. and TILL, J., 2011. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing

Architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.

BARNETT, R., 2000. Supercomplexity and the Curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3),

pp. 255-265.

BARR, J., OGDEN, K., RADFORD, J. and ROONEY, K., 2009. Sustainable involvement of real

patients in medical education: thanks to volunteerism and relationship management. Medical

education, 43(6), pp. 599-600.

BAXAMUSA, M.H., Spring 2008. Empowering Communities through Deliberation The Model

of Community Benefits Agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(3), pp.

261-276.

BEAMONT, O., 2008. A Student’s Perspective: The Theory and Practice of Live Projects. M

Architecture edn. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

BEARD, C. and WILSON, J.P., 2006. Experiential Learning : A Best Practice Handbook for

Educators and Trainers. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.

BECKLEY, R.M., 1984. The studio is where a professional architect learns to make judgments.

Architectural Record, 172(10), pp. 103-105.

BELL, B., ed, 2004. Good deeds, good design : community service through architecture. New

York: Princeton Architectural Press.



BELL, B., ed, 2004. Studio at Large: Architecture in Service of Global Communities (Sustainable

Design Solutions from the Pacific Northwest). University of Washington Press.

BELL, B. and WAKEFORD, K., eds, 2008. Expanding Architecture - Design As Activism. New

York: Metropolis Books.

BELL, K., BOSHUIZEN, H.P.A., SCHERPBIER, A. and DORNAN, T., 2009. When only the real

thing will do: junior medical students' learning from real patients. Medical education, 43(11), pp.

1036-1043.

BELL, A.C. and RUSSELL, C.L., 2000. Beyond Human, beyond Words: Anthropocentrism,

Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue

canadienne de l'éducation, 25(3), pp. 188-203.

BERGER, P. and LUCKMANN, T., 1971. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin.

BEST, S. and KELLNER, D., 1997. The Postmodern Turn. New York: The Guilford Press.

BEST, S. and KELLNER, D., 1991. Postmodern Theory : Critical Interrogations. New York:

Guilford Press.

BLANDEN, J. and MACHIN, S., 2004. Educational inequality and the expansion of UK Higher

Education. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51(2), pp. 230-249.

BLOGSTER, N., 2007. A little bit of change. Mark, (8), pp. 68-79.

BLUMENFELD-JONES, D., Fidelity as a criterion for practicing and evaluating narrative

inquiry. Routledge.

BLUNDELL JONES, P., PETRESCU, D. and TILL, J., eds, 2005. Architecture and participation.

London: Spon.

BOK, D.C., 1983. A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training. Journal of Legal Education, 33,

pp. 570-585.

BONNEN, J.T., 1998. The Land-Grant Idea and the Evolving Outreach University. In: R.M.

LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First

Century. New York: Garland, pp. 25-72.

BORDEN, IAIN AND RENDALL, JANE, ed, 2000. Intersections: Architectural Histories and

Critical Theories. London: Routledge.

BOUDON, P., 1972. Lived-in Architecture. London: Lund Humphries.

BOURDIEU, P., 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard

University Press.

BOURDIEU, P., 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), pp.

723-744.



BOYER, E.L., 1996. The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach,

1(1), pp. 11-20.

BOYER, E.L. and HECHINGER, F.M., 1981. Higher Learning in the Nation's Service. A Carnegie

Foundation Essay. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation.

BOYER, E.L. and MITGANG, L.D., 1996. Building Community : A New Future for Architecture

Education and Practice. Washington DC: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.

BRABECK, M.E.A., 1998. Changing the Culture of the University to Engage in Outreach

Scholarship. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations

for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 335-364.

BRAIN, D., 1989. Discipline & Style: The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Social Production of an

American Architecture. Theory and Society, 18(6), pp. 807-868.

BRAIN, D., 1991. Practical Knowledge and Occupational Control: The Professionalization of

Architecture in the United States. Sociological Forum, 6(2), pp. 239-268.

BRAND, R. and RINCÓN, H., 2007. Tackling Six Common Dilemmas in ‘Live’ Planning Projects.

Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2(2), pp. 36-60.

BROWN, D.S., 2009. Having Words. London: Architectural Association.

BROWN, D.S., 2009. Sexism and the Star System in Architecture. Having Words. London:

Architectural Association, pp. 79-89.

BROWN, R. and YATES, D.M., 2001. WHERE HAVE YOU GONE JOE DIMAGGIO? .

BUCHANAN, P., 1989. What is wrong with architectural education? Almost everything?

Architectural Review, (1109), pp. 24-26.

BUCHANAN, J., 2001. Use of simulation technology in dental education. Journal of dental

education, 65(11), pp. 1225-1231.

BUDDEN, L.B., 1925. Review of the Congress, International Congress on Architectural

Education, 28 July to 2 August 1924 1925, Royal Institute of British Architects, pp. xi-xvi.

BURNS, C., 1998. Review: Re: Views of Findings on Architecture's Way Forward. Journal of

Architectural Education, 51(3), pp. 153-157.

CABE, 2004. Architecture and race : Black and minority ethnic students in the profession.

London: CABE.

CAKIN, S., TEACHING BEYOND THE STUDIO.

CAROLIN, P., 2000. Leslie Martin : 1908 - 2000. Architectural Research Quarterly, 4(4), pp.

295-308.

CAROLIN, P., 1997. Research assessed. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 2(03), pp. 6-11.



CARPENTER, W., 2004. Design and construction in architectural education : 1963-2003. PhD

edn. Birmingham: University of Central England in Birmingham.

CARPENTER, W., 1997. Learning by Building : design and construction in architectural

education. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

CARRIER, J., 1991. Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange.

Sociological Forum, 6(1), pp. 119-136.

CARTER, J., 1959. Self build at the Birmingham School. Architects Journal, (15 October), pp.

353-355.

CASTRO, F.G., KELLISON, J.G., BOYD, S.J. and KOPAK, A., 2010. A Methodology for

Conducting Integrative Mixed Methods Research and Data Analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 4(4), pp. 342-360.

CHANDLER, A., 2004. "Building is a verb" : Workshop as a research forum, CEBE Studio

Culture, 2004 2004, CEBE.

CHAPMAN, B., 1997. Conceptual Issues and the Australian Experience with Income Contingent

Charges for Higher Education. The Economic Journal, 107(442), pp. 738-751.

CHARLEY, J., 2010. The shadow of economic history: the architecture of boom, slump and

crisis. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 14(04), pp. 363.

CHARMAZ, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CHARMAZ, K., 2005. Grounded Theory in the 21st Century. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S.

LINCOLN, eds, The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE, pp. 507-535.

CHARMAZ, K., 2000. Grounded Theory : Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: N.K.

DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 509-535.

CHASE, J.D., OAKES, E. and RAMSEY, S., 2007. Using live projects without pain: the

development of the small project support center at Radford University, SIGCSE '07:

Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education 2007,

ACM, pp. 469-473.

CHILES, P., 2004. Practice and the academy Critical clarifications. arq: Architectural Research

Quarterly, 8(3-4), pp. 197-203.

CHILES, P. and HOLDER, A., 2008. The Live Project. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The

Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT

Press, .

CHILES, P. and TILL, J., nd. Live Projects : An inspirational model, the student perspective. York:

Centre for Education in the Built Environment.



CHIONG, W., 2007. Justifying Patient Risks Associated With Medical Education. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 298(9), pp. 1046-1048.

CLARKE, A., 2005. Situational Analysis : Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CLEWS, D., 2001. Technologia, techne and the teaching of design, AEE2001.

COBEN, D., 1998. Radical Heroes : Gramsci, Freire and the politics of adult education. New

York: Garland.

COHEN, L., MANION, L. and MORRISON, K., 2007. Research Methods in Education. Sixth edn.

London: Routledge.

COLQUHOUN, D., 2003. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors. Nature, 423, pp. 479.

COMERIO, M.C., 1987. Design and Empowerment : 20 Years of Community Architecture. Built

Environment, 13(1), pp. 15-28.

COMERIO, M.C., 1984. Community Design : Idealism and Entrepreneurship. Journal of

Architecture and Planning Research, (1), pp. 227-243.

COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2011. Eighth Report -

Peer review in scientific publications. London: HM Government.

COMPETITION COMMISSION, 1977. Architects' Services: A Report on the Supply of

Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees. London: Competition Commission.

CORSER, R. and GORE, N., 2009. Insurgent Architecture: An Alternative Approach to Design-

Build. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 32-39.

COUZIN, J., , Rent Strikes : Radical Glasgow : Glasgow Caledonian University. Available: http://

www.gcal.ac.uk/radicalglasgow/chapters/rent_strikes.html#Glasgow [10/25/2009, 2009].

COYNE, R. and SNODGRASS, A., 1991. Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual

knowledge thesis. Design Studies, 12(3), pp. 124-131.

CRAMER, J.P. and SIMPSON, S., 2006. The Next Architect: A New Twist on the Future of Design.

Ostberg.

CRESSWELL, J., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approach. 2nd edn. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

CRESSWELL, J., 1994. Research design : qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.

CRINSON, M. and LUBBOCK, J., 1994. Architecture - art or profession. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

CROSS, N., 1990. The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), pp. 127-140.

CRYSLER, C.G., 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural

Education, 48(4), pp. 208-217.



CUFF, D., 1991. Architecture : the story of practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

CUNNINGHAM, A., 2005. Notes on education and research around architecture. The Journal of

Architecture, 10(4), pp. 415.

CUNNINGHAM, A., 1980. Educating around architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 5(2),

pp. 131.

CUNNINGHAM, A., 1979. The genesis of architectural education. Studies in Higher Education,

4(2), pp. 131.

DAMMERS, J., SPENCER, J. and THOMAS, M., 2001. Using real patients in problem-based

learning: students' comments on the value of using real, as opposed to paper cases, in a problem-

based learning module in general practice. Medical education, 35(1), pp. 27-34.

DARDER, A., BALTODANO, M.P. and TORRES, R.D., eds, 2009. The Critical Pedagogy Reader.

Second edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge.

DAVIDOFF, P., 1965. ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING. Journal of the American

Institute of Planners, 31(4), pp. 331-338.

DAVIS, C.J., 1960. Live Projects at the School of Architecture Birmingham. Architects Journal,

(6 October), pp. 516-518.

DAWKINS, J., AUSTRALIA. DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT, E., and TRAINING, 1987. Higher

education: a policy discussion paper. Dept. of Employment, Education and Training.

DE CARLO, G., 2005. Architecture's Public. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J.

TILL, eds, Architecture and Participation. First edn. London: Spon, pp. 3-22.

DE CARLO, G., 1980. An Architecture of Participation. Perspecta, 17, pp. 74-79.

DE GRAFT-JOHNSON, A., MANLEY, S. and GREED, C., 2003. Why do women leave

architecture? London: Royal Institute of British Architects.

DEAN, A.O., 2005. Proceed and be bold : Rural Studio after Samuel Mockbee. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press.

DEAN, A.O., 2002. Rural Studio : Samuel Mockbee and an architecture of decency. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press.

DEARING, R., 23 July, 1997-last update, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into

Higher Education [Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, Wales, Scotland, and

Northern Ireland], [Online]. Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [1 June, 2011].

DENZIN, N.K. and LINCOLN, Y.S., eds, 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2011. National Strategy for Higher Education

to 2030. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.



DEWAR, M.E. and ISAAC, C.B., Summer 1998. Learning from Difference: The Potentially

Transforming Experience of Community-University Collaboration. Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 17(4), pp. 334-347.

DEWEY, J., 1963. Experience & Education. New York: Collier Books.

DEWEY, J., 1896. The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological review, 3(4), pp. 357-370.

DICKINSON, M., 2000. Giving undergraduates managerial experience. Education + Training,

42(3), pp. 159-170.

DOBSON, A., 28 January, 2000-last update, The Cubie Report explained [The Guardian],

[Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/jan/28/

tuitionfees.highereducation [1 June, 2011].

DODDS, G., 2009. Editorial: Alterity | Alternative. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp.

3-3.

DOIDGE, C.E.A., ed, 2000. The Crit: An Architecture Student’s Handbook. Oxford:

Architectural Press.

DORNAN, T. and BUNDY, C., 2004. What can experience add to early medical education?

Consensus survey. BMJ, 329, pp. 834-839.

DORRELL, E., 7/29, 2003-last update, Closed doors [The Guardian], [Online]. Available: http://

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jul/29/highereducation.cutsandclosures?INTCMP=SRCH

[11/16, 2011].

DUGGAN, F., 2004. The Changing Nature of the Studio as an Educational Setting. CEBE

Transactions, 1(2), pp. 70-76.

DUTTON, T.A., ed, 1991. Voices in architectural education : cultural politics and pedagogy.

London: Bergin & Garvey.

DUTTON, T.A., 1991. Cultural Politics and Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2),

pp. 67-68.

DUTTON, T.A., 1987. Design and Studio Pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1),

pp. 16-25.

EDWARDS, E., 2008. Third-level fees: a timeline of the third-level fees debate. The Irish

Times, .

EGAN, J., April, 2004-last update, The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities [Office

of the Deputy Prime Minister], [Online]. Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/

documents/communities/pdf/152086.pdf [9/19, 2011].

ELLIS, R. and CUFF, D., eds, 1989. Architects' People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



ELLSWORTH, E., 1989. Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working through the Repressive

Myths of Critical Pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), pp. 297-297.

EPSTEIN, R.M. and HUNDERT, E.M., 2002. Defining and Assessing Professional Competence.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), pp. 226-235.

ERDMAN, J. and WEDDLE, R., 2002. Designing/Building/Learning. Journal of Architectural

Education, 55(3), pp. 174-179.

ERDMAN, J., 2006. Studio South. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(4), pp. 19-25.

ESTRADA, K. and MCLAREN, P., 1993. A Dialogue on Multiculturalism and Democratic

Culture. Educational Researcher, 22(3), pp. 27-33.

EWING, S.C., 2008. Coming and going : itinerant education and educational capital. In: S. ROAF

and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture.

Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 119-123.

EWING, K.P., 1998. Crossing Borders and Transgressing Boundaries: Metaphors for

Negotiating Multiple Identities. Ethos, 26(2), pp. 262-267.

FEARN, H., 8/21, 2008-last update, Grand designs but shaky foundations [Times Higher

Education], [Online]. Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?

sectioncode=26&storycode=403224 [11/16, 2011].

FISHER, T., 2008. Architectural design and ethics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

FISHER, T., 2000. In the scheme of things: alternative thinking on the practice of architecture.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

FLOWERS, M., MOORE, J. and RYKER, L., 2009. Introduction. Journal of Architectural

Education, 62(4), pp. 4-5.

FLUID, 2005. Your place, or mine..? A study on participatory design, youth, public space and

ownership. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J. TILL, eds, Architecture &

Participation. London: Spon, pp. 247-273.

FLYNN, S., 2011. Report urges student fees system. Irish Times, .

FLYNN, S., 2004. Department looking at university fees from fourth year. Irish Times, .

FLYNN, S., 2004. Student loan scheme 'inevitable'. Irish Times, .

FLYNN, S., 2003. Dempsey plans radical reform of higher-level grants system. Irish Times, .

FLYNN, S. and MCGUIRE, P., 2010. Less than 15% in some Dublin areas going to college. Irish

Times, .

FLYVBJERG, B., 2011. Case Study. In: N.K. DENZIN and Y.S. LINCOLN, eds, The Sage Handbook

of Qualitative Research. 4th Edition edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 301-316.



FORNEY, J., 2005. Learning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year Ten. Architectural Design, 75(4),

pp. 92-95.

FORSYTH, A., 2008. Great Programs in Architecture: Rankings, Performance Assessments, and

Diverse Paths to Prominence. Archnet-IJAR, 2(2), pp. 11-22.

FORSTER, W.P., COOMBS, S. and THOMAS, R., 2008. The architect and the academy: research

through design at the Welsh School of Architecture. In: S. ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The

Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT

Press, .

FORSYTH, A., LU, H. and MCGIRR, P., 2000. Service Learning in an Urban Context:

Implications for Planning and Design Education. Journal of Architectural and Planning

Research, 17(3), pp. 236-259.

FORSYTH, A., LU, H. and MCGIRR, P., 1999. Inside the Service Learning Studio in Urban

Design. Landscape Journal, 18(2), pp. 166.

FOWLES, B., 1984. Design-build projects in architectural education. Design Studies, 5(1), pp.

7-14.

FOWLES, R.A., 1990. Teaching architecture: a complete action. Design Studies, 11(2), pp. 81-88.

FRAMPTON, K., 2007. Modern architecture : a critical history. 4th edn. London: Thames &

Hudson.

FRANK, A.I., 2007. Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning

education? Planning Practice and Research, 22(4), pp. 635.

FRASER, M., 2005. The cultural context of critical architecture. The Journal of Architecture,

10(3), pp. 317-322.

FREDERICKSON, M.P., 1993. Gender and Racial Bias in Design Juries. Journal of Architectural

Education, 47(1), pp. 38-48.

FREIRE, P., 2008. Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Continuum.

FREIRE, P., 2004. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum.

FREIRE, P., 2003. Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum.

FREIRE, P., 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. Oxford:

Rowman & Littlefield.

FREIRE, P., 1996. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New revised 20th anniversary edition edn.

London: Hammondsworth Penguin.

FREIRE, P., 1978. Pedagogy in process: the letters to Guinea-Bissau. New York: Seabury Press.

FRIEDAN, B., 2010. The Feminine Mystique. Revised edn. London: Penguin.



GARDNER, R., 1974. The development of architectural education in the UK. Architects Journal,

(9 October), pp. 873-881.

GARROTT, J.G., 1983. Facilitating experiential learning in environmental design. Design

Studies, 4(2), pp. 115-123.

GELBIER, S., 2005. 125 years of developments in dentistry, 1880-2005 Part 2: Law and the

dental profession. British Dental Journal, 199(7), pp. 470-473.

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, 2009. Tomorrow’s doctors. London: GMC.

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, 2003. Tomorrow’s doctors. London: GMC.

GIBBS-KENNETT, P., 1997. Architecture's research dimension. Times Higher Education, (12

September),.

GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Cultural Politics and Architectural Education : Refiguring the Boundaries

of Political and Pedagogical Practice. In: T.A. DUTTON, ed, Voices in architectural education :

cultural politics and pedagogy. London: Bergin & Garvey, pp. ix-xii.

GIROUX, H.A., 1981. Ideology, Culture & the Process of Schooling. London: Falmer Press.

GIROUX, H.A., 2010. Paulo Freire and the Crisis of the Political. Power and Education, 2(3), pp.

335-340.

GIROUX, H.A., 2006. The Giroux Reader. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

GIROUX, H.A., 1993. Paulo Freire and the Politics of Postcolonialism. In: P. MCLAREN and P.

LEONARD, eds, Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge, pp. 177-188.

GIROUX, H.A., 2010. Lessons From Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education, .

GIROUX, H.A., 1992. Border Crossings - Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. 1st

edn. London: Routledge.

GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Modernism/Postmodernism. Journal

of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 69-79.

GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Postmodernism. Social Text, (28), pp.

51-67.

GIROUX, H.A., 1991. Democracy and the Discourse of Cultural Difference: towards a politics of

border pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(4), pp. 501.

GLOSTER, D., 2008. Pride and prejudice: illusions of consensus in architectural debate. In: S.

ROAF and A. BAIRSTOW, eds, The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education in

architecture. 2 edn. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 255-260.

GODFREY, P.C., 1999. A rejoinder to Kenworthy-U'Ren : Enlarging the tent of service-learning.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 388.



GODFREY, P.C., 1999. Service-learning and management education: A call to action. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 363.

GOLDSCHMIDT, G., 1995. The designer as a team of one. Design Studies, 16(2), pp. 189-209.

GOSS, A., 1962. Realistic Projects at Birmingham. Architects Journal, (4 April), pp. 727-731.

GOWAN, J., ed, 1975. A continuing experiment : learning and teaching at the Architectural

Association. London: Architectural Press.

GRAFTON, A., 2010. Britain: The Disgrace of the Universities. New York Review of Books,

57(6), pp. 32.

GRAY, M.J., ONDAATJE, E.H. and ZAKARAS, L., 1999. Combining service and learning in

higher education. Summary report. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

GROÁK, S., 1988. UK architectural education: Trends and issues. Habitat International, 12(1),

pp. 75-86.

GROAT, L.N. and AHRENTZEN, S., 1996. Reconceptualizing Architectural Education for a

More Diverse Future: Perceptions and Visions of Architectural Students. Journal of


GROAT, L.N. and AHRENTZEN, S.B., 1997. Voices for Change in Architectural Education:

Seven Facets of Transformation from the Perspectives of Faculty Women. Journal of


GRUNDY-WARR, C., 2004. Reflections on Field-based Teaching and Learning. CDTL Brief,

7(9), pp. 10-12.

GUEST, G., BUNCE, A. and JOHNSON, L., 2006. How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field

Methods, 18(1), pp. 59-82.

GUPTA, U.G. and CLARKE, R.E., 1996. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: a

bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), pp. 185-211.

GUTMAN, R., 1977. Architecture : the Entrepreneurial Profession. Progressive Architecture,

58(5),.

GUY, S. and MOORE, S.A., 2007. Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination.


HARAWAY, D., 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the

Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599.

HARDER, E., ed, 2005. EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in architectural education. 1st edn.

Copenhagen: EAAE.

HARDIN, M.C., ERIBES, R. and POSTER, C., eds, 2006. From the Studio to the Streets : Service-

Learning in Planning and Architecture. Sterling, VA: Stylus.



HARRIS, N., 2004. Experiential Learning in Built Environment Education. CEBE Transactions,

1(1), pp. 3-7.

HARRIS, G., 2004. Lessons for Service Learning in Rural Areas. Journal of Planning Education

and Research, 24(1), pp. 41-50.

HARRISON, S., 1998. Between tower and street. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), pp. 5.

HATHERLEY, O., 2009. Militant Modernism. Winchester: Zero Books.

HAWKES, D., 2000. The architect and the academy. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly,

4(01), pp. 35-39.

HAWKES, D., 1995. The Centre and the Periphery: some reflections on the nature and conduct

of architectural research. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 1(01), pp. 8-11.

HAYES, R.W., 2007. The Yale Building Project: The First 40 Years. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

HEALEY, M., 2005. Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 183-201.

HENDERSON, G., 2009. CEBE Briefng Guide Series, No.15: Part-time Teaching in Schools of

Architecture. London: CEBE.

HEYLINGS, D.J.A. and TARIQ, V.N., 1999. Employer - Linked Project Based Learning : Practical

Experience and Guidelines. Queen's University Belfast: Enterprise QUB.

HICKS, D.E., 1988. Deterritorialization and Border Writing. In: R. MERRILL, ed, Ethics /

Aesthetics: Post-Modern Positions. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve Press, pp. 47-58.

HIGGINS, M., 2005. Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through a 'Live' Project. CEBE

Transactions, 2(2), pp. 63-73.

HIGGINS, M., 2004. Urban Design Project in a Multi-Disciplinary European Context:

Collaboration between Education and Practice. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), pp. 16-36.

HIGGOTT, A., 2007. Mediating Modernism. Abingdon: Routledge.

HIGHT, C., 2009. Alternating Currents. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 95-96.

HINSON, D., 2002. Community Centered Design/Build Studio: Connecting the Past & the

Future of Architectural Education. Auburn University.

HINSON, D. and FREEAR, A., 2001. Educating Architects at the Rural Studio: Exploring New

Models of Design Education in the Rural South, Confluences: The 2001 ACSA Southwest

Regional Conference, 2001 2001.

HINSON, D., 2007. Design as Research. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), pp. 23-26.

HINTON, D., 1958. Live projects by the Birmingham School of Architecture. Architects Journal,

(3 April), pp. 505-518.



HIRSHEN, S. and DOVEY, K., 1981. Public Service Architecture. Journal of Architectural

Education, 35(1), pp. 28-31.

HMELO-SILVER, C.E., 2004. Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?

Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp. 235-266.

HOLMAN, W., 2012. Lessons from the Front Lines of Social Design. http://

places.designobserver.com/feature/lessons-from-the-front-lines-of-social-design/31998/ edn.

San Francisco, CA: The Design Observer Group.

HOLMAN, D., PAVLICA, K. and THORPE, R., 1997. Rethinking Kolb's Theory of Experiential

Learning in Management Education. Management Learning, 28(2), pp. 135-148.

HOOKS, B., 1993. bell hooks speaking about Paulo Freire. In: P. MCLAREN and P. LEONARD,

eds, Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London: Routledge, pp. 146-154.

HOU, J. and RIOS, M., 2003. Community-Driven Place Making. Journal of Architectural

Education, 57(1), pp. 19-27.

HOWE, A. and ANDERSON, J., 2003. Involving patients in medical education. BMJ, 327, pp.

327-328.

ILLICH, I., 2002. Deschooling Society. London: Marion Boyars.

ILLICH, I., 1973. Celebration of Awareness. London: Penguin.

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF DENTAL EDUCATION, 1995.

Dental education at the crossroads: challenges and change Washington, DC: Institute of

Medicine.

ITIN, C.M., 1999. Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in

the 21st century. The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), pp. 91.

IWAMOTO, L. and SCOTT, C., 2001. Surface/Thickness Translated: Design-Build as Vehicle.


JACKSON, A., 1995. Reconstructing Architecture for the Twenty-First Century. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

JAGSI, R. and SOLEYMANI LEHMANN, L., 2004. The ethics of medical education. BMJ, 329,

pp. 332-334.

JANN, M. and PLATT, S., 2009. Philanthropic Architecture - Nongovernmental Development

Projects in Latin America. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 82-91.

JEMTRUD, M. and CAZABON, Y.P., 2002. 1:1 @ Carleton University School of Architecture.


JENKINS, F., 1961. Architect and Patron. London: Oxford.



JENKINS, P. and FORSYTH, L., eds, 2010. Architecture, Participation and Society. Abingdon:

Routledge.

JENKINS, P., MILNER, J. and SHARPE, T., 2010. A brief historical review of community

technical aid and community architecture. In: P. JENKINS and L. FORSYTH, eds, Architecture,

Participation and Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 23-38.

JHA, V., QUINTON, N.D., BEKKER, H.L. and ROBERTS, T.E., 2009. Strategies and

interventions for the involvement of real patients in medical education: a systematic review.

Medical education, 43(1), pp. 10-20.

JOHNSON-MARSHALL, P., 1965. Education for environmental design. RIBA Journal,

(March), pp. 119-131.

JONES, J.C., 1992. Design Methods. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley.

JONES, J.C., 1991. Designing Designing. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press.

JONES, J.C., 1970. Design Methods: seeds of human futures. 1st edn. London: Wiley-

Interscience.

JONES, J.C., 1963. A Method of Systematic Design. In: J.C. JONES and D.G. THORNLEY, eds,

Conference on Design Methods. 1st edn. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 53-73.

JONES, J.C. and THORNLEY, D.G., eds, 1963. Conference on Design Methods 1st edn. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

KAYE, B., 1960. The development of the architectural profession in Britain. London: George

Allen & Unwin.

KEITH, J.G., PERKINS, D.F., GREER, J.C., MCKNIGHT CASEY, K. and FERRARI, T.M., 1998.

The Young Spartan Programme. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-

Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 289-314.

KELLE, U., 2005. "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded

Theory" Reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), pp. 27.

KENT, M., GILBERTSON, D.D. and HUNT, C.O., 1997. Fieldwork in Geography Teaching : a

critical review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,

21(3), pp. 313-332.

KENWORTHY-U'REN, A.L., 1999. Management students as consultants: An alternative

perspective on the service-learning "call to action". Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), pp.

379-387.

KIM, J., 2006. Exploring social construction in architectural pedagogy. Open House

International, 31(3), pp. 51-59.



KIM, J. and ABERNETHY, J., 2006. Service-Learning as a Holistic Inquiry and Community

Outreach Studios. In: M.C. HARDIN, R. ERIBES and C. POSTER, eds, From the Studio to the

Streets : Service-Learning in Planning and Architecture. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 139-153.

KINCHELOE, J., 2008-last update, A Conversation with Peter McLaren [The Paulo and Nita

Freire International Project for Critical Pedagogy], [Online]. Available: http://freireproject.org/

content/peter-mclaren-video-interview [05/13, 2011].

KINCHELOE, J., 2008-last update, Henry Giroux Interview [The Paulo and Nita Freire

International Project for Critical Pedagogy], [Online]. Available: http://freireproject.org/

content/henry-giroux-interview [4/25, 2011].

KIRSCHNER, P.A., SWELLER, J. and CLARK, R.E., 2006. Why Minimal Guidance During

Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-

Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp. 75.

KOLB, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development.

1st edn. London: Prentice-Hall.

KOSTOF, S., ed, 1977. The Architect : chapters in the history of the profession. New York:

Oxford University Press.

KOUTSOUMPOS, L., 2007. Reconciliatory praxis: Bridging Ethics and Poetics in the Design

Studio, , 13 -15 September 2007 2007.

KROLL, L. and MIKELLIDES, B., 1981. Can Architecture Be Taught? JAE, 35(1), pp. 36-39.

LANDAU, R., 1981. Notes on a concept of an architectural position. AA Files, 1(1), pp. 111-114.

LANDETA, J., 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological

forecasting and social change, 73(5), pp. 467-482.

LAPSLEY, P., 2004. Commentary: Patients in medical education and research. BMJ, 329, pp.

334.

LARSON, M.S., 1977. The Rise of Professionalism : A Sociological Analysis. Berkley, CA:

University of California.

LATOUR, BRUNO AND WEIBEL, PETER, ed, 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of

Democracy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

LAVE, J. and WENGER, E., 1991. Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. 1st edn.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LAWRENCE, A., 2000. Changing architectural practice paradigms and their implications for

professional education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(3), pp. 196-205.

LAWSON, B., 2002. The subject that won't go away But perhaps we are ahead of the game. Design

as research. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 6(02), pp. 109.



LEDEWITZ, S., 1985. Models of Design in Studio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education,

38(2), pp. 2-8.

LEON, P., 2004. Blueprints for healthy intellectual hothouses. Times Higher Education, (20

February),.

LERNER, R.M. and SIMON, L.A.K., eds, 1998. University-community collaborations for the

twenty-first century. New York: Garland.

LEWIS, R., 2012. Clinical Legal Education Revisited. SSRN eLibrary, .

LIFCHEZ, R., ed, 1987. Rethinking architecture : design students and physically disabled people.

1st edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.

LIFCHEZ, R., 1981. Students as Research Subjects: Conflicting Agendas in the Classroom? JAE,

34(3), pp. 16-23.

LIFCHEZ, R., 1978. Teaching a Social Perspective to Architecture Students. JAE, 31(3), pp.

11-15.

LINDSEY, B., September 2007, 2007-last update, Community Works: Sambo Mockbee and the

Rural Studio. Available: http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2007/09/

community_works.php [5/3/2009, 2009].

LINSTONE, H.A. and TUROFF, M., eds, 1975. The Delphi method : techniques and applications.

London: Addison-Wesley.

LIPMAN, A., 1970. Architectural education and the social commitment of contemporary

British architecture. The Sociological review, 18(1), pp. 5-27.

LLOYD, P. and SCOTT, P., 1994. Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), pp.

125-140.

LONERGAN, N. and ANDERSEN, L.W., 1988. Field-Based Education : Some Theoretical

Considerations. Higher Education Research & Development, 7(1), pp. 63-77.

LUCK, R., 2007. Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies,

28(3), pp. 217.

MACLEAN, L. and WERNER, M., 2006. BUILDING COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS

EFFECTIVELY. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(6), pp. 76-87.

MARKUS, G.B., HOWARD, J.P.F. and KING, D.C., 1993. Integrating Community Service and

Classroom Instruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 15(4), pp. 410-419.

MARMOT, A. and SYMES, M., 1985. The social context of design: A case problem approach.




MARTIN, L., 1960. An Overall View of the Architect's Training. Architects Journal, (3

November), pp. 658-659.

MARTIN, L., 1958. Conference on Architectural Education. RIBA Journal, (June), pp. 279-283.

MAUSS, M., 1990. The Gift: the Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London:

W. W. Horton.

MAXWELL, J., 1992. Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational

Review, 62(3), pp. 279-279.

MAXWELL, R., 1983. The two theories of architecture. Architectural Education, (1), pp.

113-124.

MAXWELL, R., 2000. Education for the creative act. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly,

4(01), pp. 55-66.

MAYO, J.M., 1991. Dilemmas of Architectural Education in the Academic Political Economy.


MAYO, J.M., 1988. Critical Reasoning for an Enlightened Architectural Practice. Journal of


MCADAM, S., GUETERBOCK and PIPPA, 2005. Your place, or mine..? A study on participatory

design, youth, public space and ownership. In: P. BLUNDELL JONES, D. PETRESCU and J. TILL,

eds, Architecture & Participation. London: Spon, pp. 247-273.

MCGONIGAL, E., 2005. Trigger Paper to CEBE Studio Culture 3: The largest first year in the UK

- size matters. London: CEBE.

MCLAREN, P., 1998. Che: The pedagogy of Che Guevara: Critical pedagogy and globalization

thirty years after Che. Cultural Circles, 3, pp. 29-103.

MCLAREN, P. and LEONARD, P., eds, 1993. Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. London:

Routledge.

MCLAREN, P., 2009. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In: A. DARDER, M.P.

BALTODANO and R.D. TORRES, eds, The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second Edition edn.

Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 61-83.

MCLELLAN, E., MACQUEEN, K.M. and NEIDIG, J.L., 2003. Beyond the Qualitative Interview:

Data Preparation and Transcription. Field Methods, 15(1), pp. 63-84.

MENIN, S., 2007. Sir Colin St. John ('Sandy') Wilson: 1922â€“2007. arq: Architectural Research

Quarterly, 11(02), pp. 103-108.

MEUNIER, J., 1987. Paradigms for Practice: A Task for Architectural Schools. Journal of


MIESSEN, M. and BASAR, S., eds, 2006. Did Someone Say Participate? Cambridge, MA: MIT.



MIETTINEN, R., 2000. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of

reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), pp. 54.

MILLAIS, M., 2009. Exploding the Myths of Modern Architecture. London: Frances Lincoln.

MILLER, D.W., 1999. The black hole of education research. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

45(48), pp. A17.

MILLER, S.I. and FREDERICKS, M., 1999. How Does Grounded Theory Explain? Qualitative

health research, 9(4), pp. 538-551.

MILLINER, L., 2003. Architectural Education : Studio Culture Keynote Paper, CEBE Concrete

Centre Studio Culture Conference, December 2003 2003, CEBE.

MISHLER, E., 1990. Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative

Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), pp. 415-415-442.

MOORE, K.D. and WANG, D., 2005. Reflection and Reciprocity in Interdisciplinary Design

Service-Learning. In: M.C. HARDIN, R. ERIBES and C. POSTER, eds, From the Studio to the

Streets. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 155-169.

MOOS, DAVID AND TRECHSEL, GAIL, ed, 2003. Samuel Mockbee and the Rural Studio :

community architecture. Birmingham, AL: Birmingham Museum of Art.

MORROW, R., 2007. Creative Transformations. In: A. SALAMA and N. WILKINSON, eds,

Design Studio Pedagogy: horizons for the Future. Urban International Press, .

MORROW, R., MACKEL, C. and FITZGERALD, J.D., 2011. Beyond the shadow space:

architecture as a professional and creative process; during and post-conflict. Routledge.

MORSE, J.M., 1991. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.

Nursing research, 40(2), pp. 120.

MORSE, J.M., BARRETT, M., MAYAN, M., OLSON, K. and SPIERS, J., 2002. Verification

Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp. 13-22.

MOUFFE, C. and HOLDENGRÄBER, P., 1989. Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?

Social Text, (21, Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism), pp. 31-45.

MUMFORD, E., 2000. The CIAM discourse on urbanism, 1928-1960. 1st edn. Cambridge, MA:

MIT.

MURRAY, P., 1973. AA/AA/Polyark Bus Tour. Architectural Design, 43(4), pp. 201-212.

MUSGROVE, J., 1983. Architectural education : the growth of a disclipline. Architectural

Education, (1), pp. 105-112.

NARVÁEZ, L.M.J. and FEHÉR, G., 2000. Design's Own Knowledge. Design Issues, 16(1), pp.

36-51.



NEEDHAM, J., 1962. Live Project at Sheffield. Architects Journal, (4 April), pp. 732.

NICOL, D. and PILLING, S., eds, 2000. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New

Professionalism. London: E & FN Spon.

NORBECK, J.S., CONNOLLY, C. and KOERNER, J., 1998. Introduction. In: J.S. NORBECK, C.

CONNOLLY and J. KOERNER, eds, Caring And Community: Concepts And Models For Service-

learning In Nursing. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 1-6.

OCHSNER, J.K., 2000. Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the

Design Studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), pp. 194-206.

O'NEILL, C., 1973. The Making of an Architect. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, , pp.

263-272.

OSWALD, A., 2011. Data be damned: REF's blueprint for systemic intellectual corruption Times

Higher Education, (September 22),.

PAECHTER, C., PREEDY, M., SCOTT, D. and SOLER, J., eds, 2001. Knowledge, Power and

Learning. 1st edn. London: P. Chapman in association with Open University.

PALLASMAA, J., 2009. The Thinking Hand. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

PARNELL, S., 2008. Coverage of the 1958 Oxford Conference was harsh and influential.

Architects Journal, (17 July), pp. 47.

PATEL, K., 1999. Architects fear course renovation. Times Higher Education, (22 January),.

PATEL, K., 1997. More power to the RIBA. Times Higher Education, (29 August),.

PEACOCK, D.M., 1999. Charles Reilly and architectural education in Britain. PhD edn.

University of Keele.

PEARSON, J., 2002. A Context for University-Community Design Partnerships. In: J.

PEARSON, ed, University-community design partnerships innovations in practice. Washington

DC: National Endowment for the Arts, pp. 11-19.

PEARSON, J., 2002. University-community design partnerships innovations in practice.

Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts.

PERKES, D., 2009. A Useful Practice. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 64-71.

PETRESCU, D. and CHILES, P., 2009. Agency: alternative practices and alternative worlds. arq:

Architectural Research Quarterly, 13(02), pp. 109-111.

PEVSNER, N., 1960. Pioneers of modern design. Rev. edn. London: Penguin.

PFAMMATTER, U., 2000. The Making of the Modern Architect and Engineer. Basel:

Birkhauser.

PHILLIPS, E.M. and PUGH, D., S., 2005. How to get a PhD : a handbook for students and their

supervisors. 4th edn. London: Open University Press.



PIETROMARCHI, B., The [un] common place: art, public space and urban aesthetics in Europe.

Spain: Actar.

PORTER, S., 2007. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: reasserting realism in qualitative

research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), pp. 79-86.

PRING, R., 2000. Philosophy of Educational Research. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.

PRIZEMAN, M., 2005. Hooke Park As a New AA Initiative in Education. Architectural Design,

75(4), pp. 54-57.

QUAY, J., 2003. Experience and Participation: Relating Theories of Learning. Journal of

Experiential Education, 26(2), pp. 105-116.

QUAYLE, M. and PATERSON, D., 1989. Techniques for Encouraging Reflection in Design.


RAPOPORT, A., 1984. Architectural Education: There is an urgent need to reduce or eliminate

the dominance of the studio. Architectural Record, 172(10), pp. 100-103.

REAL, P.D., 2009. "Ye Shall Receive": The Rural Studio and the Gift of Architecture. Journal of


REYNOLDS, M., 1998. Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management

Learning, 29(2), pp. 183.

RIPLEY, C., THÜN, G. and VELIKOV, K., 2009. Matters of Concern. Journal of Architectural

Education, 62(4), pp. 6-14.

ROAF, S., ALEXANDER, C., BENNETTS, R. and PARISSIEN, S., 2008. Architectural education:

the 1958 Oxford Conference revisited. BD, (6 June),.

ROAF, S. and BAIRSTOW, A., eds, 2008. The Oxford Conference : a re-evaluation of education

in architecture. 2nd edn. Southampton: WIT.

ROAKES, S.L. and NORRIS-TIRRELL, D., 2000. Community Service Learning in Planning

Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), pp. 100-110.

ROBBINS, E., SMITH, M.K., HACK, G.A. and LEE, T.F., 1981. The Client in Architectural

Education: Three Interviews at M.I.T. Journal of Architectural Education, 35(1), pp. 32-35.

ROBERTS, A., 2007. CEBE Briefng Guide Series, No.10: Giving Effective Feedback to Students

in Architecture and Landscape Architecture. London: CEBE.

ROBERTS, A., 2004. Problem Based Learning and the Design Studio. CEBE Transactions, 1(3),

pp. 1-3.

ROBINSON, C., 2003. Timothy Hursley [Portfolio]. Places, 15(2), pp. 48-61.

ROBINSON, J.W., 1990. Architectural Research: Incorporating Myth and Science. Journal of




ROLFE, G., 2006. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative

research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), pp. 304-310.

ROMICE, O. and UZZELL, D., 2005. Community Design Studio: a Collaboration of Architects

and Psychologists. CEBE Transactions, 2(1), pp. 73-88.

ROMNEY, A.K., WELLER, S.C. and BATCHELDER, W.H., 1986. Culture as Consensus: A

Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), pp. 313-338.

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, 1952. Report of the RIBA Visiting Board upon

the School of Architecture, the College of Art and Crafts, Birmingham. London: RIBA.

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, nd, Why use an architect. Available: http://

www.architecture.com/UseAnArchitect/WhyUseAnArchitect/WhyUseAnArchitect.aspx

[4/8/2009, 2009].

RUBBO, A., 2001. Values and Architectural Education. Architectural Theory Review, 6(2), pp.

65-80.

RUEDI, K., 1998. Bauhaus dreamhouse : architectural education in the age of image

reproduction PhD edn. London: University College London.

RUEDI, K., 1998. Review: A Commentary on Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural

Education, 51(3), pp. 148-152.

RURAL STUDIO, 2011-last update, Rural Studio : Auburn University [Auburn University],

[Online]. Available: http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx?path=Gallery

%2fPurpose%2fHistory%2f [9/19, 2011].

SACHS, A., 1999. ‘Stuckness' in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 195-209.

SADLER, S., 2002. Archigram's invisible university. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly,

6(03), pp. 247.

SALAMA, A., 2008. A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education.

http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=10329 edn. Archnet-

IJAR.

SALAMA, A., 2007. A Structured Content and A Rigorous Process Meet in Studio Pedagogy. In:

A. SALAMA and N. WILKINSON, eds, Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons For the Future.

Gateshead: The Urban International Press, pp. 153-166.

SALAMA, A., O'REILLY, W. and NOSCHIS, K., eds, 2002. Architectural Education Today: Cross

Cultural Perspectives. Lausanne: Comportements.

SALAMA, A. and WILKINSON, N., eds, 2007. Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons For the Future.

Gateshead: The Urban International Press.

SANDEFUR, R.L. and SELBIN, J., The Clinic Effect. Clinical Law Review, Vol.16, p.57, 2009, .



SANOFF, H., 2003. Three Decades of Design and Community. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State

University.

SAPSFORD, R. and JUPP, V., eds, 1996. Data collection and analysis. London: Sage.

SARA, R., 2006. CEBE Briefing Guide Series, No.8: Live Project Good Practice: A Guide for

theImplementation of Live Projects. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.

SARA, R., 2004. Between studio and street : the role of the live project in architectural education,

University of Sheffield.

SARA, R., 2004. Does the Live Project have a future in architectural education. Studio Culture 2:

Touching the Real, 15th-16th December (trigger paper).

SARA, R., 2000. Introducing clients and users to the studio project : a case study of a 'live' project.

In: D. NICOL and S. PILLING, eds, Changing Architectural Education. London: E & FN Spon, pp.

77-83.

SARA, R. and PARNELL, R., 2004. CEBE Briefing Guide Series, No.3: The review process.

London: CEBE.

SARKIS, H., 2009. Alternative A. Journal of Architectural Education, 62(4), pp. 93-94.

SCARPA, L., 1999. Portable Construction Training Center: A Case Study in Design/Build

Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(1), pp. 36-38.

SCHAIK, L.V., 2005. Mastering Architecture : Becoming a Creative Innovator in Practice.

Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

SCHÖN, D., 1991. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice. New York:

Teachers Press: Columbia University.

SCHÖN, D., 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

SCHÖN, D., 1985. The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. London:

RIBA Publications.

SCHÖN, D., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. London:

Temple Smith.

SCHOSTAK, J.F., 2002. Understanding, designing and conducting qualitative research in

education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

SCHRATZ, M., ed, 1993. Qualitative voices in educational research. London: Falmer Press.

SCHWART, E.G., 1995. Crossing Borders/Shifting Paradigms: Multiculturalism and Children's

Literature. Harvard Educational Review, (Winter),.

SEAMAN, J., 2008. Experience, Reflect, Critique: The End of the "Learning Cycles" Era. The

Journal of Experiential Education, 31(1), pp. 3.



SEGLEN, P. O., 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating

research. BMJ, 314(7079), pp. 497.

SEGREST, R., 1997. The Architecture of Architectural Education. Assemblage, (33), pp. 76-79.

SEIBERT, K.W., 1999. Reflection-in-action: Tools for cultivating on-the-job learning

conditions. Organizational dynamics, 27(3), pp. 54-65.

SEIFER, S.D., HERMANNS, K. and LEWIS, J., eds, 2000. Creating community-responsive

physicians: concepts and models for service-learning in medical education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

SENNETT, R., 2009. The Craftsman. London: Penguin.

SHAW, R. and JACKSON, T.G., eds, 1892. Architecture - a profession or an art. London: John

Murray.

SHEPHERD, J., 1/30, 2007-last update, A difficult patch [The Guardian], [Online]. Available:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/jan/30/researchassessmentexercise.research

[11/16, 2011].

SHERIDAN, D., 2009. 'Building Initiative' in Belfast. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly,

13(02), pp. 151-162.

SHERROD, L.R., 1998. The Common Pursuits of Modern Philanthropy and the Proposed

Outreach University. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community

Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 397-417.

SHOR, I., 2009. What is Critical Literacy? In: A. DARDER, M.P. BALTODANO and R.D.

TORRES, eds, The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second Edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.

282-304.

SHOR, I., 1999. What is Critical Literacy. In: I. SHOR and C. PARI, eds, Critical literacy in action:

writing words, changing worlds. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook/Heinemann, .

SHULMAN, L.S., 2005. Pedagogies of Uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), pp. 18-25.

SHULMAN, L.S., 2005. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), pp. 52-59.

SILVER-ISENSTADT, A. and UBEL, P.A., 1999. Erosion in Medical Students' Attitudes About

Telling Patients They Are Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(8), pp. 481-487.

SIMPSON, D.J., JACKSON, M.J.B. and AYCOCK, J.C., eds, 2005. John Dewey and the Art of

Teaching. 1st edn. London: Sage.

SLETTO, B., 2010. Educating Reflective Practitioners: Learning to Embrace the Unexpected

through Service Learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(4), pp. 403-415.

SMALL, S.A. and BOGENSCHNEIDER, K., 1998. Toward a Scholarship of Relevance. In: R.M.

LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First

Century. New York: Garland, pp. 255-274.



SMITH, A., July 2004, 2004-last update, Architectural Education: A Selective Bibliography

[Architectural Association], [Online]. Available: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/library/documents/

education.pdf [9/12, 2011].

SMITH, J., 1962. The schools in transition. Architect & Building News, (14 February), pp.

239-244.

SMITH, J., 1962. Schools of Architecture - 6 - Cambridge. Architect & Building News, (3

January), pp. 17-24.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 1 - Edinburgh. Architect & Building News, (18

January), pp. 73-82.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 10 - Liverpool. Architect & Building News, (15

November), pp. 725-732.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 11 - Glasgow. Architect & Building News, (13

December), pp. 899-906.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 2 - Birmingham. Architect & Building News, (22

February), pp. 257-263.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 3 - Nottingham. Architect & Building News, (22

March), pp. 387-393.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 4 - Leicester. Architect & Building News, (12 April),

pp. 475-482.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 5 - Kingston-upon-Thames. Architect & Building

News, (10 May), pp. 613-620.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 6 - Cardiff. Architect & Building News, (14 June), pp.

795-802.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 7 - Bristol. Architect & Building News, (26 July), pp.

133-140.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 8 - Canterbury. Architect & Building News, (20

September), pp. 435-442.

SMITH, J., 1961. Schools of Architecture - 9 - Kingston-upon-Hull. Architect & Building News,

(25 October), pp. 617-624.

SMITH, J., 1958. The Schools. Architecture and Building, (February), pp. 42-69.

SMITH, M.K., 2001-last update, David A. Kolb on experiential learning [the encyclopedia of

informal education], [Online]. Available: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm [1/11,

2011].



SMITH, M.K., 9/3, 2009-last update, Donald Schon (Schön): learning, reflection and change [the

encyclopedia of informal education], [Online]. Available: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-

schon.htm [1/19, 2011].

SNODGRASS, A., 2000. On 'Theorising Architectural Education'. Architectural Theory Review,

5(2), pp. 89-93.

SPARKES, A.C., 2001. Myth 94: Qualitative Health Researchers will Agree about Validity.

Qualitative health research, 11(4), pp. 538-552.

STACEY, M., 2009. Nottingham students put this South African community on a learning

curve. BD, (1873), pp. 14-15.

STANLEY MORGAN, R., 1961. USCON - Upper School Conglomerate demonstration frame.

Architects Journal, (20 September), pp. 413-414.

STANSFIELD SMITH, C., 1999. Architecture education for the 21st century : RIBA review of

architectural education. London: RIBA.

STAVENGA DE JONG, JAN A., WIERSTRA, R.F.A. and HERMANUSSEN, J., March 2006. An

exploration of the relationship between academic and experiential learning approaches in

vocational education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 155-169(15).

STEVENS, G., 1998. The favored circle : the social foundations of architectural distinction.

Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

STUNKEL, K.R., 1998. The lecture: A powerful tool for intellectual liberation. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 44(42), pp. A52.

TAMAS, A., 25 April 2011, 2011-last update, Interview: Robert Venturi & Denise Scott Brown

[ArchDaily], [Online]. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/130389/interview-robert-venturi-

denise-scott-brown-by-andrea-tamas/ [4/25, 2011].

TAYLOR, P.V., 1993. The Texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham: Open University Press.

TAYLOR, H., 1991. The Systematic Training Model: Corn Circles in Search of a Spaceship?

Management Learning, 22(4), pp. 258-278.

THACKARA, J., March 31, 2009-last update, Make Sense, Not Stuff. Available: http://

www.doorsofperception.com/archives/BLOG.thackara.cumulus.TEXT-FINAL.pdf [October 20,

2009].

THE EDITORS, 1958. Theme for the Oxford Conference. Architects Journal, (3 April), pp. 487.

THE LABOUR PARTY, 2001-last update, Labour Party General Election Manifesto. Available:

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml [1 June, 2011].

THE LABOUR PARTY, 1997-last update, Labour Party General Election Manifesto. Available:

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml [1 June, 2011].



THOMAS MITCHELL, C., 1995. Action, perception, and the realization of design. Design

Studies, 16(1), pp. 4-28.

THOMAS, K.L., ed, 2007. Material Matters. Abingdon: Routledge.

THOMAS, S. and BUSBY, S., 2003. Do industry collaborative projects enhance students’

learning? Education + Training, 45(4), pp. 226-235.

THOMAS, G. and JAMES, D., 2006. Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory,

ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), pp. 767.

TILL, J., 2009. Architecture Depends. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

TILL, J., 2009. Architecture is not architecture is not architecture is not architecture.

Conference paper edn. London: RIBA.

TILL, J., 2005. Lost Judgement. In: E. HARDER, ed, EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in

architectural education. 1st edn. Copenhagen: EAAE, pp. 164-181.

TILL, J., 2003. Strong Doubt. Designs on diversity exhibition catalogue. London: Stephen

Lawrence Gallery, .

TODD, C.M., EBATA, A.T. and HUGHES JR., R., 1998. Making University and Community

Collaborations Work. In: R.M. LERNER and L.A.K. SIMON, eds, University-Community

Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Garland, pp. 231-253.

TOKER, Z., 2007. Recent trends in community design: the eminence of participation. Design

Studies, 28(3), pp. 309.

TOURNIKIOTIS, P., 2001. The historiography of modern architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

TROMBLEY, S., 1983. The Oxford Conference and after : an interview with Elizabeth Layton.

Architectural Education, (1), pp. 89-97.

TSANG, E., 2007. Introduction. In: E. TSANG, ed, Projects That Matter: Concepts and Models for

Service-Learning in Engineering. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 1-12.

UDALL, J., 2006. Architecture by Other Means. M Architecture edn. Sheffield: University of

Sheffield.

UK GOVERNMENT, 1992. Further and Higher Education Act (1992). London: Office of Public

Sector Information.

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, , Live Projects. Available: http://

www.liveprojects.org/ [4/22/2009, 2009].

VERMEULEN, T. and VAN DEN AKKER, R., 2010. Notes on metamodernism. Journal of

Aesthetics & Culture, 2.

VERNON, D.T.A., 1995. Attitudes and Opinions of Faculty Tutors about Problem-based

Learning. Academic Medicine, 70(3), pp. 216-223.



VILJOEN, A. and HOSKYNS, T., 2007. For Real: a review of the extend of 'live practice' within 3D

design education in the UK and its potential contribution to curriculum development within the

ADM Subject Area. Report for the Art Design and Media - Higher Education Academy Learning

and Teaching Project. University of Brighton: School of Architecture and Design.

VON PRONDZYNSKI, F., 2011. Hunt fails to deliver on great expectations. Irish Times, .

VON PRONDZYNSKI, F., 2011. In bonny Scotland, the challenges are the same and the solutions

hard to see. Irish Times, .

WALES, B., 2006. Small Built Works Project. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(2), pp.

18-24.

WALSH, E., 2011. Finding the muscle to fix our failing education system. Irish Times, .

WARD, A., 1990. Ideology, culture and the design studio. Design Studies, 11(1), pp. 10-16.

WARD, A., 1991. Biculturalism and Community: A Transformative Model for Design

Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(2), pp. 90-109.

WASS, V., JONES, R. and VAN DER VLEUTEN, C., 2001. Standardized or real patients to test

clinical competence? The long case revisited. Medical education, 35(4), pp. 321-325.

WASS, V. and VAN DER VLEUTEN, C., 2004. The long case. Medical education, 38(11), pp.

1176-1180.

WATT, K. and COTTRELL, D., 2006. Grounding the curriculum: learning from live projects in

architectural education. International Journal of Learning, 13, pp. 97-104.

WEBSTER, H., 2008. Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and

Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), pp. 63-74.

WEBSTER, H., 2004. Facilitating critically reflective learning: excavating the role of the design

tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), pp.

101.

WEINTHAL, L., 2006. House Lab. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(2), pp. 25-28.

WEISMAN, L.K., 1994. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made

Environment Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

WEISMAN, L.K., CERULLI, C. and KOSSAK, F., 2009. ‘Educator, Activist, Politician’. Field, 3(1),

pp. 7-22.

WELSCH, J. and YOUSMAN, B., 5 December, 2006-last update, Culture, Politics & Pedagogy: A

Conversation w/ Henry Giroux [Media Education Foundation], [Online]. Available: http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgdVCnTTqXA [07/03, 2012].

WESTFALL, C.W., 2008. Why the Orders Belong in Studio. Journal of Architectural Education,

61(4), pp. 95-107.



WIGLEY, M., 1991. Prosthetic Theory: The Disciplining of Architecture. Assemblage, (15), pp.

7-29.

WILSON, M.A., 1996. THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 16(1), pp. 33.

WINK, J., 2000. Critical pedagogy: notes from the real world. Second edn. Longman.

WINNER, S., 2001. Beyond Skills Training. Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1844.

WINTERBOTTOM, D., 2002. Landscape Journal, 21(1), pp. 201-213.

WOLF, H., 1987. Observations on Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(2), pp.

91-93.

WOOD, A. and OXLEY, D., 2007. Learning through Collaboration, an Industry/School of

Architecture Partnership. CEBE Transactions, 4(1), pp. 76-88.

WYKURZ, G. and KELLY, D., 2002. Developing the role of patients as teachers: literature

review. BMJ, 325(7368), pp. 818-821.

YANAR, A., 1999. The silenced complexity of architectural design studio tradition : pedagogy,

epistemology and the question of power. PhD edn. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

YENTIS, S.M., 2005. The use of patients for learning and maintaining practical skills. Journal of

the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, pp. 299-302.

YIN, R.K., 1989. Case study research : design and methods. London: Sage.

YOUNG, W., 1968. Address to the 100th Convention of the American Institute of Architects.

Portland, Oregon: AIA.

ZIEBLAND, S. and MCPHERSON, A., 2006. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an

introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Medical

education, 40(5), pp. 405-414.



vol2: a critique of the live project

Documents

academic institution

yeslive project

teaching projects

journal of education

engagement of students

james benedict brown

higher education

deeper engagement