Kendir-Beraha, Elif (2015) Learning from the construction site: An epistemological investigation of stonemasons and architects in action. PhD thesis, RMIT University, Australia.
Abstract
Previous studies of architectural practice have tended to treat the realization stage of the making of buildings as a mostly technical matter, with little potential for providing input for the design process. Despite the recognition of the importance of know-how involved in the construction site, the nature of this know-how and its impact on the generation of architectural knowledge is understudied. Based on the original fieldwork involving a series of interviews conducted with traditional stonemasons from Turkey and practising architects from six different countries, this thesis examines how material interactions in situ shape design knowledge in architectural practice. The observation of a unique case of design collaboration from the Sagrada Família design office in Barcelona further illustrates the dynamics of these material interactions. Making buildings is first and foremost a situated activity: it is on the site of construction that the abstract design concept comes into contact with the messy world of matter. In order to observe and analyse the interplay between material entities, physical environments and human actors in situ at the resolution stage of the design process, this thesis adopts a post-humanistic stance, where inanimate things as well as human actors are considered to possess agency. Using insights gathered from Actor-network theory (ANT) to direct the investigation, the thesis highlights the role of physical sites as active agents in the generation and accumulation of architectural knowledge. In the data gathered for this thesis, the site is found to operate in the design process in three key ways: as repository – a provider of design knowledge coded within the existing built environment; as resource – a provider of materials and skills; and as the observation platform for the assessment of the built artefact unfolding in time, interacting with natural elements and patterns of use. Although most of the work in this thesis centres on the accounts of the practice of human actors, the findings contest the notion of humans being completely in charge, and reveal the vital impact of a non-human actor, the site, that literally and metaphorically grounds the design process by acting as a framework for the generation, assessment and handing down of architectural knowledge.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Burry, Mark and Wordon, Suzette |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | actor-network theory; architecture; construction site; craft; design knowledge |
| Index terms: | platform, design collaboration, investigation, construction site, agency, in-situ, built environment, Turkey, architectural practice, stonemason, interview, artefact, architect, resolution, interaction, agent, dynamics, design process, non-human actor |
| Subjects: | work location, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, building construction, practitioner, data collection methods, conflict resolution, profession, systems engineering, behavioral psychology, business, design methods, Geography, digital design |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Site Management, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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