Whyte, J K; Ewenstein, B; Hales, M and Tidd, J (2007) Visual practices and the objects used in design. Building Research & Information, 35(1), pp. 18-27. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Recent interest in material objects - the things of everyday interaction - has led to articulations of their role in the literature on organizational knowledge and learning. What is missing is a sense of how the use of these 'things' is patterned across both industrial settings and time. This research addresses this gap with a particular emphasis on visual materials. Practices are analysed in two contrasting design settings: a capital goods manufacturer and an architectural firm. Materials are observed to be treated both as frozen, and hence unavailable for change; and as fluid, open and dynamic. In each setting temporal patterns of unfreezing and refreezing are associated with the different types of materials used. The research suggests that these differing patterns or rhythms of visual practice are important in the evolution of knowledge and in structuring social relations for delivery. Hence, to improve their performance practitioners should not only consider the types of media they use, but also reflect on the pace and style of their interactions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; knowledge; learning; objects; visual practices |
| Index terms: | manufacturer, media, interaction, architectural firm, evolution, practitioner |
| Subjects: | environmental science, practitioner, behavioral psychology, business, sociology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability |
| 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