Kreiner, K (2010) Paradoxes of architectural competitions: The competition between efficiency, justice and creativity. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Architectural competitions can be analyzed as an institutionalized social technology that seeks to elicit and select great architectural designs in an efficient and fair manner. The introduction of dialogue-based forms of architectural competitions is a new and radical innovation of this old institution. An empirical study of a dialogue-based architectural competition reveals a number of concerns. For dialogues to become sustainable elements in competitions these concerns will have to be addressed and coped with. One major concern to be addressed is the widespread but problematic presumption that dialogues embody a continuous learning and clarification process towards the logical and rational decision of the competition panel.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dialogue-based architectural competitions; ethnographic studies; social technology |
| Index terms: | empirical study, architectural competition, competition, justice, paradox, efficiency, creativity, architectural design |
| Subjects: | social theory and frameworks, tendering, design practice, performance management, market analysis, legal systems, research methods, innovation and creative processes |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Research Practice, Design Practice, Quality Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here