ARC 4536 - Architectural Design IV-A : The Architectural Foundations of Communication in Human Equity ©

Faculty: Christopher Monson

Course Timeline: 2003 Fall Semester (Start date: 20 August 2003 / End date: 12 December 2003)

Number of Credit Hours: 6 credit hours

Brief explanation of where the studio falls within the curriculum sequence: ARC 4536--Architectural Design IV-A is the seventh semester of architectural design studio in an undergraduate BArch program of ten semesters. It is the first term of fourth year design studio

Pre-requisites to the studio: Architecture major, ARC 3546 or equivalent or consent of Dean

Approximate Number of Students: 20

Pedagogic Framework

Class meeting times: 1-5 pm MWF, plus site visits

Content Sequence

Public building site visits; documentation and analysis

Research and development of "apparent space" dialogical methodology

Readings in social justice and human equity (see REFERENCES below)

Consulting experts; content and issues of diversity, social justice, human equity

Building site; documentation and analysis

Building program; analysis and development

Building design; demonstrating "conceptual" and "experiential" social justice

Documentation and presentation; text and graphics, design jury, conferences, publication

Project Overview

Sample Images from the Project

Pixelated study image.
Photo Credit: Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University. The image is of artist Thomas Hart Benton's 1920 painting "People of Chilmark." It is pixelated into small squares of color, abstracting the posed human figures of the painting into advancing and receding colors.
Students critiquing collaborative team proposals for building surfaces
Photo Credit: Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University. Six students gather around a large site model and discuss the impact of potential building surfaces upon the existing spaces of the project site.
Students discuss low-vision and blindness with an expert consultant.
Photo Credit: Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University
Stacy Butler, an expert in low-vision and blindness, takes questions from a group of students seated in a circle around her. This meeting followed their initial research into universal design issues.
Students critique ideas of spatial manipulation.
Photo Credit: Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University
A colorful diagram hangs on the wall with four students gathered looking and pointing at it. Exploring the dialogical character of architectural form, students discuss spatial manipulations in plan and section and consider how it will communicate to users. Collaborative student team presents their building design at the final studio jury.
Photo Credit: Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University

The two members of a student collaborative team stand behind a large architectural site model pointing to their drawings hanging on a wall. Having designed their project buildings together, students share the responsibilities of presentation at the final jury.
University Classroom Building for Dialogic Learning. Final building design by student team Russ Markle and David McMillin.
Photo Credit: Russ Markle, David McMillin, Mississippi State University

A colorful computer image view from the southeast corner of the building site shows a final building design as it would look in the afternoon sun. The complex orthogonal concrete forms of its south facade are seen against a pattern of blue-tinted windows. The design was made by Russ Markle and David McMillin.

This studio project examines the architectural foundations of communication in advancing human equity in the environment, and will work to build a design methodology from which an ethically-bound architecture can emerge which supports social justice. Based upon human perception of the "apparent space" induced by form, architecture can be said to communicate "dialogically," and offers a potential methodology to make ethical judgments about the human equity evident in architectural design. After developing this methodology, it will be demonstrated through the design of a University Classroom Center for Dialogic Learning; a campus building supporting the integrative, interdisciplinary, and collaborative instructional pedagogy called problem-based learning (PBL). Significant context will come from a diverse field of consulting experts. Students will work in the studio collaboratively, employing ideas of dialogic communication and broadening its potentials toward human equity. The final building proposal will be designed by small student teams, working against normative studio "individualism."

Core Objectives

1. advance the benefits of dialogic communication as a vehicle for social justice and human equity
2. research and develop analytical systems by which the communicative qualities of architecture can be proposed and evaluated
3. test our results by designing a building which demonstrates these possibilities
4. employ collaboration, inclusiveness, empathy, and supportiveness as a methodology of work in studio

Clients and/or user consultants involved

Consultants--Instructional and user

Linda Morse, PhD., Professor of Educational Psychology

Dr. Philip Bushby, Professor of Veterinary Medicine; PBL specialist

Donnie Prisock, PhD., Disability Services Coordinator, Student Support Services; MS disabled

Janice Thompson, Deaf Services Coordinator, Student Support Services

Susan Glisson, PhD., Advisor, SEED (Students Envisioning Equality Through Diversity)

William "Brother" Rogers, Assistant Director, Oktibbeha Race Relations Team

Jody Renaldo, Executive Director, Equality Mississippi; Gay/Lesbian advocacy group

Approach to the Proposed Studio Process and Content

This studio project examines the architectural foundations of communication in advancing human equity in the environment. Though the project program incorporates a fully diverse community, its content is not specifically about redressing needs. Instead, this studio will work to build a design methodology of dialogical communication from which an ethically-bound architecture can emerge which supports social justice, democracy, and human equity. This "discursive" quality of built form is the very foundation of social justice; for example, it is human inclusion, empathy, and support that is spoken by a doorway designed to be both beautiful and universally accessible.

This work hopes to create a new--and better--trajectory for architectural education and practice. To engage this challenge, the studio will 1) research the processes by which architectural form communicates experientially and conceptually; 2) develop an analytical system by which the communicative qualities of new forms can be proposed and evaluated; 3) advance the benefits of dialogic communication as a vehicle for social justice and human equity; and 4) test our results by designing a building which demonstrates these possibilities.

Studio Project - University Classroom Center for Dialogic Learning

The studio project is a new classroom building supporting "problem-based" learning (PBL) for all disciplines on a University campus. PBL is an instructional pedagogy based in student-directed learning and collaboration, methodologically very similar to the studio-based learning used in architectural education. Far more integrative than the traditional classroom, PBL requires student engagement with the world; it is inherently interdisciplinary, connected with real-world problems and practices, and dependent upon the diversity of people, their histories, and their ideas. Especially important is the fact that PBL is dependent upon human cooperation, a notion central to evolving ideals of justice and equality (Charlton 1997, and Fogel 2000).

The users for this building represent the broad academic community, as well as the local and regional population. Human diversity is central to our site; among many other groups, forty percent of the potential users are African American. Students will acknowledge that the ethos of the problem lies in acceptance of human differences, and demonstrate that inclusiveness through architectural design (Ignatieff, 1985).

Design Agenda--Social justice as "conceptual" and "experiential"

As a demonstration of dialogic communication, the architectural design of this classroom center will address--and exhibit--sustainable construction and inhabitation, resource stewardship, universal access, and human inclusiveness through function. These are "conceptual" in the sense that they are ideas of human equity, which are larger than the physical elements that manifest them (Weisman 1994). The building design also must incorporate "experiential" social justice by properly composing the formal organization of the architecture such that it communicates dialogically. This issue is innate to the physical and formal qualities of light, shape, color, and space perceived by each human inhabitant; it is the demonstration of human equity through bodily experience.

Design Theory--Dialogic reciprocity in communication and architectural form

Experiential social justice has been long been ignored by an architectural profession focused on ego, language, and style. The "tyranny of the individual" seen normatively in architectural education only reinforces this larger disciplinary problem, as does the lack of viable design methods that engage social human equity through experience.

How can architecture reengage the experiential values of human equity? A model for positive architectural communication is the theory of dialogic reciprocity. This theory argues for discourse that is properly "dialogic," and inherently bound within a larger set of inter-subjective human ethics.

The same kind of "dialogic" conditions occur within form; for example, color, shape, and light are all perceived dialogically. Similarly, since the human perception of architecture is always different than its exact physical reality, surface and space can be seen to induce an "apparent" perception, where its discourse has effects that are analogous to human communication. This offers a potential methodology to make ethical judgments about the human equity evident in architectural design.

To assess the dialogic character of form, a number of analytical methods will be introduced and researched by the studio; among these, mapping systems of the induced effect of surface upon space using orthographic cuts, and documentation of the apparent space engendered by surface effects in elevation. From both of these processes, a theory of dialogical judgment will be proposed and the subsequent design work of students can be made and evaluated in dialogic terms.

Project Practice - The culture of the studio

Unlike normative studio process, this project will be collaborative from beginning to end, including architectural design. Students will work in collaborative groups to research the grounding methodology for the project, and will be paired up in teams to propose and develop a building design. An important benefit of collaboration is its emphasis on management; proper time management decreases the "24/7" work excesses of typical studios--an issue of significant concern outlined in a number of major reports (Boyer 1996, and AIAS 2002).

As in the project design work, student collaboration will depend upon the skills and application of dialogic communication. The studio will emphasize the issues of authenticity, inclusion, confirmation, presentness, mutual equality, support, and reciprocity in good communication practice (Johannesen 1975). These ideas will be broadened toward an inclusiveness of diversity and an acceptance of differences of gender, race, disability, and sexual orientation. The client base for the building design--and the consultants working with students--represents all aspects of diversity.

Project Outcome - Products, new knowledge, and student assessment

The studio work will be documented in the analytical and synthetic representation of student research and design processes, and in demonstration of new knowledge through a building design proposal. All will be accomplished in both textual and graphic forms. Among the significant discoveries promised by the studio research is a theory of dialogical judgment as applied to architectural form. This theory will be developed and offered up for dissemination through publications and conferences. Student learning assessment will use multi-variant evaluation vehicles including

1. project journals;
2. peer skill and knowledge testing;
3. process and product evaluation
4. oral examinations; and
5. exterior expert and consultant evaluation.

References

AIAS. Redesign of Studio Culture: A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Architecture Students, Inc., 2002.

Boyer, Ernest L. and Lee D. Mitgang. Building Community: A new future for architectural education and practice. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.

Charlton, Bruce G. "The inequity of inequality: egalitarian instincts and evolutionary psychology." Journal of Health Psychology 2 (1997).

Fogel, Robert William. The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitaianism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Ignatieff, Michael. The Needs of Strangers: An essay on privacy, solidarity, and the politics of being human. New York: Viking Penguin, 1985.

Johannesen, Richard L. Ethics in Human Communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1975.

Weisman, Leslie Kanes. Discrimination by Design. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Responses to Reviewer’s Questions

Since classes have already started for fall semester 2003, some of the comments below will reflect the ongoing nature of the studio work.

1. Provide details on how the teamwork by students will be facilitated.

   Facilitation of teamwork is happening in two complimentary ways. First, methods of group work have been discussed and modeled, and students are responsible of demonstrating these ideas in practice. Secondly, I am meeting daily with team leaders and group members in a tutorial role, asking questions and guiding activities. The overall facilitation idea is to teach the students applicable teamwork strategies, and then assist them as they construct groups and manage their work.

   As a studio, we began by setting up the team activities within the broader issue of human dialogue. We began the semester with a number of discussions about the methodology of team work, suggesting patterns of communication, behavior, and responsibility which enables the group to function best. This includes the acceptance of leadership; students were asked to individually "step up" into leadership roles if they had not had the practice of doing so in the past. Student groups are collaboratively chosen by the studio, and issues, methods, and outcomes of the group work are developed by each team. Each group is required to be transparent with the entire studio about the content and effort of their work. Groups are developing various methods of publicly posting work, schedules, and results. Each group is also required to document and share their "collective" responsibility toward the efforts of the entire studio; this has taken the form of public posting of tasks and time spent, a sort of "time clock" system of working.

   By the middle of the semester, students will be set up in teams of two to collaboratively design an architectural solution to the building problem. The criteria for selection includes 1) students who can learn from each other, 2) work together successfully, and 3) compliment each other's strengths and weaknesses. To prevent the selection process from devolving into either a popularity contest or a shot-gun wedding, we are going to attempt a "market" strategy to best identify these teams; their peers in other studio sections will first be asked to rank potential teammates, then our students will rank those narrowed choices, and the results will be confirmed by a collective decision.

2. Explain how and when the diverse array of instructional and user experts will be integrated into the framework of the studio.

   After the initial discussions in problem-setting for the building design, students will be given the responsibility to identify the resources and knowledge bases that they will require to begin programming and designing. This will include our experts, as well as the varied resource of the ASJA network and Adaptive Environments. As part of our original application, I have selected a group of local experts who represent diversity groups and issues that will necessarily be part of proposing a satisfactory design. However, the use of these people and resources will engage the student's efforts through a student-designed, problem-solution strategy. Students will define when and how expert resources are integrated into their design processes, as opposed to instructor-directed daily "lectures" on a particular citizen group, or a particular disability. This represents an important learning strategy of problem-based learning (PBL)—the heart of this studio project; that content issues are raised within the context of problem solving, not presented to students as issues separate from their own design processes.

3. Please assure that within the target populations the subgroups with their own issues of diversity are identified and considered in the design process. These include: children, elderly people, people with disabilities of all ages, culturally diverse, and socially disadvantaged people.

   The equitable understanding of the diversity in people's lives, cultures, abilities and requirements is the fundamental ground of this studio project. But in the spirit of researching a more holistic method of architectural practice, we are setting the question of human diversity within a broader methodology of designing for human needs. We hope to build a design process which identifies unique human needs—feelings of safety for the elderly, inclusiveness for different sexualities, for example—as a "performance" requirement within the problem itself, as opposed to an exterior mandate of legislated codes or regulations. Knowing the differently-abled capacities of a person in a wheelchair, for instance, how does one—from this initial recognition of need—design a proper hallway and door opening? When considered in this manner, regulations like ADA then become "checks" for design as opposed to "how" an architect designs. Embedded in the understanding of the unique qualities of all people, this holistic method appears much more capable of enabling a design method which supports human equity.

4. Explain how the dialogic method will be translated into design that addresses human-centered needs.

   In simplest terms, the studio will work to build a design methodology that 1) first, recognizes human-centered needs holistically instead of categorically, 2) takes those needs and projects spatial conditions which respond to them, and then 3) uses these facts of subject-object interrelationship ("dialogue") to assess, test, and improve the resulting architectural form.

   Architectural form can be recognized for its capacity to reciprocate an understanding of human needs—the way a door handle is located at a proper height for a hand, the warm color of a wall energizing a bedroom in morning sunlight—and this empathetic potential can be understood through theories of communication, of dialogue. This idea is perhaps best represented by the work of Elaine Scarry in her pathbreaking thesis The Body in Pain, which the studio is currently reading. In her arguments that the world of artifice (architecture) needs to be credited with awareness toward humankind, she concludes that objects own a reciprocal measure of responsibility to us. It is the research intention of this studio project to codify this "dialogic" condition as a useful tool for design assessment and judgment; using the analogy of subject-to-subject communication for subject-to-object interaction.

   Initially, our studies will focus on the dialogic effects of space, which are induced by the compositional elements of color and pattern on surfaces. When perceived through the senses, these elements create what we will call "apparent space"; that is, the surface typically seems to exist in a location different from its actual physical location (this is the effect of human observation that suggests that a room looks "bigger" than it actually is). Though more complex, the same thing happens through the "language" aspects of architectural form, where the "recognition" of form and pattern work to clarify or confuse perception (this is the effect of human observation that confuses us when a front door is not readily legible). The way in which both the physical and conceptual nature of architecture is perceived ultimately can be seen as a form of communication, and as such can be evaluated within the normative socio-political realm of ethics, morals, and other qualitative human judgment systems.

   Though architectural form is fundamental to human equity, it has managed to remain above and beyond the socio-political system in which it operates because we have largely lacked any cogent methods for assessment and action. The studio project hopes to develop the application of these systems to architectural design.

5. Please clarify the ways in which the student projects will be documented portfolio, CDs, publications, exhibit, etc.

   As part of baccalaureate program requirements, students and their design teams will be responsible for the production of the regular components of an architectural design proposal; representational drawings, models, and all associated research and developmental work. All of this work will be digitally archived for use in subsequent scholarship and for online presentation.

   The award from the Architecture for Social Justice program would support the dissemination of the studio work through exhibitions, publications, and conference presentations. The research agenda of the studio—building a dialogical design methodology in the support of human equity—will be documented through student products, but organized and interpreted under the direction of the instructor. The studio has already committed to two public gallery exhibitions of the studio's "apparent space" studies as part of additional financial support given to us by our College. This support includes the procurement of a 16' x 20' plotted mosaic banner that will be used to study the spatial effects of color and pattern in elevation, and will become the major component of the subsequent gallery exhibitions. We hope to have this exhibition travel to other schools of architecture to help disseminate the methodology—and human responsiveness—represented by the possibilities of dialogic design.

   The scholarly contributions of the studio work will be advanced by publishing articles on the ideas generated as well as documentation of the studio results. Students will participate in the development of this work, and attend conferences where the work can be further discussed through their participation. Dissemination of the results through the support of organizations like Adaptive Environments is crucial.

   In addition, the design project itself—a classroom building for problem-based learning (PBL)—is a completely new building typology, so the results of student design efforts will represent one of the first investigations of PBL in architecture. We hope to publish the collective building design proposals through the vehicles of PBL literature and conferences.

6. Please clarify the roles of non-traditional reviewers in the evaluation process.

   As stated in response #2, the engagement of experts, non-traditional reviewers, and other resources outside of the studio will be identified and organized by the students themselves. This self-building of resources is a fundamental position within the pedagogy of problem-based learning. The most important of these resources will be those available through the ASJA network and Adaptive Environments. In my instructional role as tutor, I will see to it that students incorporate those resources effectively, and facilitate in their planning. I will also be responsible for seeing to it that all necessary resources—especially those of people representing diverse populations—contribute to ongoing design development, and that these people are involved in student evaluation. As part of the PBL process, students will actively participate in the creation of evaluation methods for their own work. Currently, we are experimenting with a "digital review" system which uses a web-based surveying method called "PeerTools" (peertools.com) to formulate online evaluations for non-traditional reviewers who cannot always participate in our studio.

For more information, contact Christopher Monson at cmonson@sarc.msstate.edu

Read the Forum on this topic

Citation: Monson, Christopher (2003). ARC 4536--Architectural Design IV-A, The Architectural Foundations of Communication in Human Equity ©. Retrieved (Enter date here), from Universal Design Education Online web site: http://www.udeducation.org/teach/asj/monson.asp

Email this page | return to top of page