Oliver, G (2007) Erosion of drawing as a thinking and collaborative tool. Building Research & Information, 35(5), pp. 571-575. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The Building Research Information special issue on 'Visual Practices: Images of Knowledge Work' (2007) begins to unravel the complex uses of knowledge embodied within artefacts such as drawings and the use of these artefacts in the wider social contexts of sharing and negotiating knowledge. However, there are some central questions about the changing nature of working practices and the complex functions ascribed to visual artefacts. The declining use of drawing and the rising use of computer-aided design (CAD) and information technology (IT) require further understanding, particularly for the social and organizational aspects of working within a design team and engaging with 'outside' stakeholders. Within the design office, the use of CAD systems may inhibit crucial peer conversations and interactions as well as limit the iterative working process when compared with the drawing process. Outside the design office, does the finished quality of CAD documents encourage dialogue, understanding, flexibility and openness with stakeholders (especially users) when compared with other forms of drawing? The act of drawing is an intellectual activity that embraces both analysis (understanding) and conception (proposition). Can CAD offer a similar level of richness or is there a loss in capabilities for those without drawing skills? Further research is needed, along the lines initiated in this special issue, to understand better the impacts and limitations imposed by the isolation of working behind a computer monitor.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; design practices; design process; drawing; professional practices; visual representation; visualization |
| Index terms: | professional practice, design process, negotiating, drawing, information technology, working practice, design team, design practice, building research, interaction, documents, visualization, organizational aspect, artefact, computer aided design |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, computational design, design practice, computing systems, professional practice, design process, business, design methods, sociology, behavioral psychology, professional development, research management, management, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Information Management, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Digital Applications |
| 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