O’Keeffe, D; Thomson, D and Dainty, A (2015) Evaluating the design of hospitals within a practice order network. Construction Management and Economics, 33(5-6), pp. 415-427. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Design evaluation is a complex and rich social practice that is organized and distinguished by its practical understandings, rules, general understandings and teleoaffective structures. This praxiographic study of a major National Health Service (NHS) hospital project uses practice theory to investigate the concept of design evaluation as 'a practice'. By applying Theodore Schatzki’s site ontology, design evaluation practices are revealed to respond to dynamic teleoaffective structures that highlight the role of both practical intelligibility and the intertwined impact of external policy stipulations. Through this theoretical lens, fresh insight into the actuality of NHS hospital design evaluation praxis is provided that questions some of the axioms upon which such processes are assumed to operate. In particular, the appropriateness of the decontextualized and deterministic processes currently found in UK government design policy is questioned. It is posited that an approach to design evaluation grounded in Schatzki’s practice theory has greater potential to improve the design quality of NHS healthcare buildings that could, in turn, improve patient healthcare outcomes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design evaluation; nhs design quality policy; practical intelligibility; schatzki’s practice theory; teleoaffective structures |
| Index terms: | design evaluation, health service, practice theory, design quality, intelligibility, praxis, ontology, social practice |
| Subjects: | reflexivity, design assessment, education and knowledge transfer, public and environmental health, human factors and perception, social theory, professional practice, theoretical framing |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Design Practice, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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