Luck, R (2007) Using artefacts to mediate understanding in design conversations. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 28-41. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The journey from the concept of a building to the actual built form is mediated with the use of various artefacts, such as drawings, product samples and models. These artefacts are produced for different purposes and for people with different levels of understanding of the design and construction processes. This paper studies design practice as it occurs naturally in a real-world situation by observing the conversations that surround the use of artefacts at the early stages of a building's design. Drawing on ethnographic data, insights are given into how the use of artefacts can reveal a participant's understanding of the scheme. The appropriateness of the method of conversation analysis to reveal the users' understanding of a scheme is explored by observing spoken micro-interactional behaviours. It is shown that the users' understanding of the design was developed in the conversations around the use of artefacts, as well as the knowledge that is embedded in the artefacts themselves. The users' confidence in the appearance of the building was considered to be gained in conversation, rather than the ability of the artefacts to represent a future reality.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artefacts; communication; conversation analysis; design practice; design process; design talk; representation; visualization |
| Index terms: | visualization, built form, design and construction, artefact, drawing, design process, design practice |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, technical documentation, design methods, sociology, design process, urban form and morphology, design practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Procurement, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| 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