Henderson, K (2007) Achieving legitimacy: Visual discourses in engineering design and green building code development. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 6-17. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper examines the processes by which early alternative, green-oriented building codes - namely those for straw bale building - were created. It compares these with the visual processes in industrial design work. The comparison reveals clear parallels in the ways in which tacit and experiential knowledge is conveyed through visual representation. The study examines how straw bale building innovators in Arizona and New Mexico, US, used visual discourse to convey technical knowledge within their own building community, and how they used visual discourse in the form of historical documentation, illustrative sketches, and video footage to make a convincing case for their technique as a viable one for code officials, even though visual representations were not allowed in building standards, per se, at the time. The research methods used are participant observation, in-depth interviews, and discourse analysis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative technology; building codes; green building; messy practice; mixed practices; situated knowledge and practice; social context; visual discourse |
| Index terms: | building code, interview, building community, green building, engineering design, alternative technology, observation, documentation, Mexico, legitimacy |
| Subjects: | community and social dimensions, professional development, regulatory law, sociology, data collection methods, design process, Geography, factor and component analysis, design practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design, Information Management |
| 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