Boissonneault, A and Peters, T (2025) The POE paradigm in architecture: Practices and perspectives of Canadian practitioners. Building Research & Information, 53(5), pp. 565-581. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The benefits of and barriers to post-occupancy evaluation ('POE') in industry are regularly described in the literature as relating to building performance and sustainable design. However, the perspectives of architects on the value of POE to design practices or processes are rarely included. The purpose of this grounded theory study was to address this gap, contributing Canadian practitioners' perspectives to stagnate conversations on the lack of architects' engagement with POE. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 practitioners from 20 different architecture firms across the country as well as 5 POE specialists working in academia and/or industry. The main finding of this study indicates that Canadian practitioners see theoretical value in POE; however, they are sceptical about its practical application and value to their design work in its present state. This has engendered disciplinary paralysis when it comes to embracing this research pathway and establishing their role in it. Further analysis indicates a need to improve the value proposition of POE in the industry with implications for researchers, architects, policymakers and professional organizations. This includes rebranding and rescoping POE, cultivating methodological richness, refocusing on the user experience, building safeguard mechanisms and building tolerance through precedent.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; grounded theory; perspectives; post-occupancy evaluation; professional practice |
| Index terms: | professional practice, user experience, practitioner, building performance, sustainable design, interview, architect, academia, paradigm, post-occupancy evaluation, grounded theory, design practice |
| Subjects: | evaluation methods, user-centered design, profession, data collection methods, educational institutions, education and knowledge transfer, professional development, practitioner, quality assurance, theoretical framing, design process |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Education, Design Practice, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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