Argumentation in co-design for architect-client interaction tools

This study investigates the role of argumentation in co-design workshops, analyzing how specific co-design activities facilitate exchanges between architects and user-clients in the development of tools aimed at improving future collaboration throughout building design and construction processes. The research addresses four key questions: (i) Which activity generates the highest level of interaction and exchange? (ii) Which activity prompts the most argumentative expression? (iii) Do architects and user-clients rely more on abstract or concrete reasoning? (iv) Which themes provoke the most reactions or disagreements? Six 'Ideation and Design' workshops, involving ten architects and six user-clients, served as the empirical context. The workshops involved structured activities designed to define challenges, to analyze and critique existing facilitation tools, and to collaboratively design new facilitation tools intended to support decision-making and dialogue in real-world architectural projects. Data analysis revealed that ideation activities elicited the most interaction, while activities focused on testimonies fostered monological argumentative discourse. Architects predominantly began with abstract arguments, gradually moving toward more concrete reflections, whereas user-clients began with concrete statements and then incorporated broader conceptual considerations. Themes such as 'Client-Architect Dynamics' provoked the most reactions and disagreements, highlighting key friction points. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of communication dynamics in co-design settings that simulate–but do not directly engage in–building design. It demonstrates how the development of facilitation tools can provide a productive context for surfacing both intuitive and argumentative knowledge. The findings underscore the potential of co-design workshops to foster collaboration and gather diverse experiential and conceptual insights.