Experiments, practices and positions in architectural design studio

Based on my experiences in architectural design studios in which I participated as a student, a researcher and a tutor, I observed that three processes are deemed essential in stimulating the students to develop novel ideas and make new associations to recognise architectural qualities. First, triggering concepts were used as a starting point for the design process in unpredicted ways. Second, alternative ways of seeing and designing were promoted through representations in a specific manner. Third, the role of the tutor and the student were questioned through practices that reverse the studio setting as well as the positions of the participants. Furthermore, I observed that there are repetitive thematic patterns within design studio practices involving these processes. From this point, this dissertation aims to illuminate the relationship between these three specific design processes, namely, triggering concepts, representations and reorganisations of the studio setting by examining experiments, practices and positions in architectural design studios within the framework of six lenses: systematicity, linearity, simultaneity, participation, limitation and complexity. The overarching research question of the study is "How can the relations among triggering concepts, representations and reorganisation of the studio setting contribute to novel forms of designing and learning in an architectural design studio?"; and it is then operationalised in relation to four sub-questions which also forms the chapter structure: - How did the historical, theoretical and practical precedents include the combination of these three processes? - How can the combination of these three processes be employed for facilitating novel forms of learning in the design studio? - How is the combination of these three processes being practised in contemporary architectural design studios? - What are the implications of employing the combination of these three processes in design studio? In order to address these questions, the enquiry assumed a mixed-method approach in data gathering and analyses, which involves a literature review, action research, structured interviews, network analysis and thematic analysis. Furthermore, the mixed-method approach relied upon methodological triangulation as a means to avoid pitfalls and to cross-check evidence from a range of data sets including self-reported logs, online questionnaires, direct observations, interview transcriptions, the reference published data and feedback sessions. A comprehensive literature review on the evolution of design studios, pedagogical experiments from the second half of the twentieth century, theoretical approaches and empirical findings from the studies about the three initial processes of the research clarified and emphasised the significance of trigger concepts, representations and reorganisation of the setting in architectural design studios. The findings revealed the featured themes that have been employed in architectural design studios by historical, theoretical and practical precedents. Featured themes can be listed as collaboration, learning by building, experimenting, learning from cases, discussing design through social critique, questioning the changing roles in architectural education, learning from students, learning with new media, and reorganising the studio structure. Participatory Action Research (PAR) method is employed for experiments in architectural design studios at ITU and KU Leuven for exploring the relationship among the three design processes. Three successive action cycles are conducted to test the empirical findings of the precedents, to include students' voice in the enquiry, and to discover the design studio practices in situ. Data is gathered through methodological triangulation of self-reported logs of students, interviews and questionnaires, and personal observations. First action cycle is employed in a first-year architectural design studio setting at ITU in 2013 to discover the three processes through four studio assignments. Second action cycle is employed in a second-semester urban architectural design master studio setting with international students at KU Leuven in Spring 2015, and it specifically focused on trigger concepts. Third action cycle is employed in a first-semester urban architectural design master studio setting with international students at KU Leuven in Fall 2015, and it focused on representations and reorganisation of the studio setting. Structured interviews are conducted with twenty studio tutors from architecture schools around the world to reveal the current opinions and positions in architectural design studios. These schools are located in Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Cuenca, Ghent, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Istanbul, Jerusalem, London, Mexico City, Rome, Santiago de Chile, Stockholm and Talca. Conversations focus on interviewees' experiences and insights as per the three aspects in their studios. A feedback session and published materials relevant to the subject are also included. As a result, this study revealed featured themes in contemporary architectural design studios through a thematic analysis of interviews to propound a discussion on studio practice and the future of the profession. Themes can be listed as learning with collaboration, learning by discovery, reacting to curricular limitations, learning by empowering, by augmenting tools, by sharing and non-linear organisation of the studio setting. The relationship with six lenses and the positions are then discussed through the findings from the literature review, participatory action research and thematic analysis of interviews. Discussions propounded the implications of employing the initial three design processes, the evolution of featured themes in design studios and the future potentials of these implications for architectural curriculum. Finally, this dissertation provided discussions on pedagogical experiments, design studio practices and curricular positions through reviews, actions and interviews to explore the trajectory of educational advance in architecture. Findings from the research revealed that the six lenses had different weights among precedent and current approaches which can prognosticate a potential change in future through collaboration, experimenting, new production techniques, empowering students, making processes, collective design, and improvisation.