Edwards, E H (1999) The architect in the building process, pragmatic reflection, concrete experience. DrTechn thesis, Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan, Sweden.
Abstract
In the thesis The Architect in the Building Process, Pragmatic Reflection, Concrete Experience, the use of reflection and dialogue in the process of, building up professional knowledge by architects engaged in the building, is examined. Interviews and dialogue seminars constitute the method employed in promoting pragmatic reflection based on the concrete experience of a number of established practicing architects. While the object of the thesis is neither to investigate the practice of architecture as such, nor the structure of contemporary building process, the informants who participate in the research consider these elements and formulate concepts in connection with a number of problematic issues. The reflections of the informants are studied in the light of theories developed by Donald A. Schön, and by Donald A. Schön together with Martin Rein. Work by John Dewey, Herbert Simon, Bengt Molander, Bertil Rolf and other explorers in the realm of professional practice is also considered.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architect; building process; professional |
| Index terms: | building process, reflection, architect, interview, professional knowledge, professional practice |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, professional development, building construction |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Site Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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