Ewenstein, B and Whyte, J K (2007) Visual representations as 'artefacts of knowing'. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 81-89. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
How does the manipulation of visual representations play a role in the practices of generating, evolving and exchanging knowledge? The role of visual representation in mediating knowledge work is explored in a study of design work of an architectural practice, Edward Cullinan Architects. The intensity of interactions with visual representations in the everyday activities on design projects is immediately striking. Through a discussion of observed design episodes, two ways are articulated in which visual representations act as 'artefacts of knowing'. As communication media they are symbolic representations, rich in meaning, through which ideas are articulated, developed and exchanged. Furthermore, as tangible artefacts they constitute material entities with which to interact and thereby develop knowledge. The communicative and interactive properties of visual representations constitute them as central elements of knowledge work. The paper explores emblematic knowledge practices supported by visual representation and concludes by pinpointing avenues for further research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artefacts and practice; situated knowledge in design; visual representations |
| Index terms: | media, interaction, architect, architectural practice, artefact, meaning |
| Subjects: | profession, behavioral psychology, sociology, business |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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