Bendixen, M and Koch, C (2007) Negotiating visualizations in briefing and design. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 42-53. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Building on an in-depth ethnographic study and the approaches of 'practice-based studies' and 'science and technology studies', the role of visual representations is explored in briefing and design processes. Three characteristic ways in which drawings contribute to ongoing negotiations are discussed. First, drawings are shown to be inscribed with particular interests, making them political instruments. Second, they have prescriptive effects as partially independent actors in the project. Third, they are shown to participate as conscriptions in a complementary process of inscription and prescription, changing their roles and configurations, and intersecting and affecting the project process in characteristic ways. Visual representations play a temporary role, and 'time' and 'phase' set boundaries for them. For practice, the analysis suggests the implication that communitarian management approaches should be chosen to promote innovative briefing and design.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | briefing; communication; design practices; drawings; practice-based theory; visual practices; visualization |
| Index terms: | configuration, science, visualization, design practice, drawing, design process, briefing, negotiation, prescription, negotiating, boundaries |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, design practice, scope management, design process, specialized education, property law, conflict resolution, systems engineering, design methods, medical science and clinical practice |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Education, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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