Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:52:39.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Different by design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

W. Mike Martin ,
Renate Fruchter ,
Humberto Cavallin  and
Ann Heylighen
W. Mike Martin
Affiliation:
College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
Renate Fruchter
Affiliation:
Project Based Learning Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Humberto Cavallin
Affiliation:
Escuelade Arquitectura, Recinto Río Piedras de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Ann Heylighen
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is generally known that architectural practice relies heavily on the interactions between architects and other professionals. However, during their formal education, most students attending architecture schools, and engineering schools for that matter, get very little (if any) exposure to decision making in conditions that involve expertise and/or worldviews beyond those reflected and valued by their own discipline. In the past 10 years, a project-based learning initiative was developed between the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University in an international context involving several other universities around the world. Throughout this experience, we have identified several issues that have shown to be crucial to these interactions. This paper elaborates on three key issues: improvement of communication skills, empowerment through developing strategies of leadership, and recognition of own and others' worldviews. We also make the case to include experiential educational situations that can introduce these aspects into the academic curricula of architecture and engineering schools.

Keywords

CollaborationCommunicationCooperationDesign StudioProject-Based Learning
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 219 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahrne, G. (1994). Social Organizations: Interactions Inside, Outside and between Organizations. Oakland, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
American Institute of Architects (2005). Summary and Review of 2005 Demographic Diversity Audit Report. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects.Google Scholar
Akin, O. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design Studies 23(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, W. (1997). Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Clinic Handbook (2006). Accessed December 12, 2006, at www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/Clinic/06-07ClinicHandbook.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doctors, S. (2004). Knowledge and collaboration. Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Fruchter, R. (1999). Architecture/engineering/construction teamwork: a collaborative design and learning space. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 13(4), 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruchter, R. (2003). Innovation in engaging learning and global teamwork experiences. In Proc. Computing in Civil Engineering Conf. at ASCE National Convention (Flood, I., Ed.) Nashville, TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruchter, R. (2004). Degrees of engagement. Paper presented at the International Journal of AI & Society.Google Scholar
Fruchter, R., Demian, P., Yin, Z., & Luth, G. (2003). Turning A/E/C knowledge into working knowledge. In Proc. Computing in Civil Engineering Conf. in Conjunction With ASCE National Convention, Nashville, TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habraken, J. (2004). Keynote Speech [Electronic Version]. Accessed at http://www.openhouse-int.com/competi/JOHN%20HABRAKEN%20PAPER.pdfGoogle Scholar
Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T.A., & Smith, D. (2003). The Redesign of Studio Culture/A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington, DC: AIAS Studio Culture Task Force.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. (1965). Hierarchy or team? Considerations on the organizations of R&D co-operatives. In Economics of Research and Development (Tybout, R.A., Ed.) Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis. Paper presented at the Bedriftsokonomen.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Shermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G., & Osborn, R.N. (1995). Basic Organizational Behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wagenknecht-Harte, K. (1989). Site + Sculpture: The Collaborative Design Process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.A. (1996). The socialization of architectural preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16(1), 33–44.Google Scholar