THE TRANSFORMATION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION TOWARDS ESTABLISHING ARCHITECTURE AS RESPONSIVE, RELEVANT AND ETHICAL SOCIAL PRACTICE- published in the conference proceedings of the

THE TRANSFORMATION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION TOWARDS

ESTABLISHING ARCHITECTURE AS RESPONSIVE, RELEVANT AND ETHICAL

SOCIAL PRACTICE: A MODEL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION

AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION.

Abstract

The role of architectural education and ethical social practice within the context of the

developing world has drawn much interest in recent times. The developing world is

characterised by the complex coexistence of multiple layers of diverse existential contexts.

Multiculturalism, different scales of economic activity and ecological diversity present many

challenges, as well as unique opportunities for the built environment professions, which in turn

requires a critical review of professional education and practice. This however, challenges the

colonially inherited historical modes of practice in the developing world, which have had to

transform in order to respond to contextual realities. In this regard, contemporary

architectural practice, and education, in the developing world has much to offer the developed

world. Historical practice, curricula and pedagogic approaches, however, inhibit responsive

architectural practice and relevance within this context. The paper argues that, in order for

architectural practice to become responsive, relevant and ethical social practice, the inherited

historic curricula and pedagogic approaches defining architectural education have to be

fundamentally transformed. Architectural education and practice has to step out of their

disciplinary silos and start to engage with the broader context; this in turn requires a

fundamental shift in epistemological balance. In this regard, the studio, as the principle

learning space in architectural education, would be critically reviewed in order to transform

into an interdisciplinary collaborative and inclusive environment. The paper will conclude by

developing a conceptual model for an interdisciplinary, collaborative studio in order to bridge

the gaps between education, practice and society in order to develop relevant and responsive

solutions to complex built environment problems. The key theoretical concepts of

Epistemological Balance, Hybridity, Interdisciplinary Engagement and Collaborative

Learning Spaces define the theoretical framework for this paper.

Keywords: Architectural education, transformation, epistemological balance, collaboration,

interdisciplinarity.

Introduction

The value of architecture in contemporary society has been the concern of the profession for

some time and this concern is becoming increasingly critical. Architecture, as an intrinsically

progressive discipline is ironically over-reliant on historic curricula, historic pedagogies and

historic practices that are becoming increasingly questioned as to their relevance to a rapidly

changing global environment. Global climate change, the rapid change in global economies,

and social change has implicitly questioned the relevance and value of architectural creation

and product. The multi-faceted complexities of the developing world require architectural

engagement with many issues that were historically foreign to the architectural curriculum,

pedagogies and practice. As a result, an increasing gap between architectural education,

practice and society has developed and this has undermined ethical social practice. Architecture

seems to have lost its place in society.

The historical position of architectural practice in society

Architecture during the pre-17th century period, had high cultural and utilitarian value as it was

strongly connected to craft and building, in the existential context. So how did architecture lose

this position of value as a cultural and utilitarian asset? The answer to this question requires an

analysis of the historical transformation of architectural practice and education dating pre-17th

century to the present day. Up until the early 17 century, architecture was closely related to the

act of making and craftsmanship, hence the utilitarian and cultural value of such architecture.

The ecological environment strongly determined form, technology and materials while social

/cultural values reflected in the architectural programmatic composition and the architectural

expression of building and open space. During this period, architecture was in the custody of

the guilds of master craftsmen and master builders and therefore strongly involved with the act

of making and the art of craftsmanship. Figure 1 illustrates the position of architecture, which

had been located in an existential /social paradigm.

Figure 1: The status of Architecture during the pre-17thcentury (Author, 2014)

Within this paradigm, architecture emerged or “became” as a result of responsive engagement

with the existential context; this context being defined by the broad layers of ecology, economy

and society /culture. As a result, architecture enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the

existential context, and naturally became a cultural manifestation through the act of making

within the socio /cultural constructs of particular existential contexts. The paradigm site for

learning was the existential context and site or place became the principal architectural learning

space.

During the early 17th century, however, architecture shifted from this existential / social

paradigm, to an artistic paradigm defined by the intuitive and cognitive faculties of the

individual architect. Figure 2 illustrates the position of architecture, during the early 17th

century, which moved to the domains of academia and the profession. Cret (1941) attributes

this epistemological shift to the Renaissance, where the ideals of the courts and the aristocracy

sought to professionalise architecture. Architecture henceforth separated from the guilds and

moved into the domain of the academies and the profession. The resultant epistemic shift

located architecture within the artistic paradigm and the self-indulgent intentions of the

professional architect, henceforth, defined architectural creation.

Figure 2: The status of Architecture during the early 17thcentury (Author, 2014)

This self-indulgent, introverted process was detached from the realities of context and little or

no concern was given to ecology, economy and society /culture. Architecture no longer

concerned itself with the act of making within the socio /cultural constructs of particular

existential contexts, and was rather abstract and object focused. During this period the

paradigm site for learning became the design studio, an isolated, intuitive, creative space.

Although architectural training / education continued to develop during the early 18th century

in the form of the articled pupillage system in Britain it was the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, which

was established in France during the mid18th century, that entrenched the studio (atelier)

pedagogy in architectural education (Howarth, 1959). The epistemology of this pedagogic

system, however, focussed heavily on the intuitive / introvert processes of creation, within an

artistic paradigm that detached itself from the acts of building and craft, and the making of

architecture in existential place largely became less relevant than the creation of beautiful and

luring objects in space. This approach fostered self-indulgence and self-expression of the

architect, which is evident in the preferential trends of architectural student projects especially

in the mid to late 1990s.

Rybcznski (cited in Stamps III, 1994, p. 105) outlines the trends in architectural education from

the early 1960s to the mid-1990s. During the early 1960s student projects engaged with social

issues as evident in the large-scale housing projects; the late sixties focussed on low-income

housing, community centres and residential infill projects, which reflected a keen interest in

social reformation. The 1970s saw the return to architectural history, as evident in large formal

buildings and renderings. Rybcznski confirms that in the1990s, however, projects tended

towards unusual buildings with little functional requirement and maximum emotive potential,

in which designers were focused on self-expression and individuality.This approach to

architectural design was rather overwhelmingly object focussed and the lure of the product

outweighed any concern of the process of contextually responsive architectural design.

Although architectural design was viewed as product during the 1990s, a product-based

approach in the architectural design process emerged much earlier, during the 1960s design

methodology movement.

Salama (2005) refers to the product-based approach of the 1960s design methodology

movement, also known as the analysis-synthesis paradigm. The sequential nature of this

approach undermined the potential of architectural design as an integrated process. Within this

system, students found it difficult to translate /synthesise their early analytical processes into

their design solutions. They generally assumed that a creative leap would translate the

programme into an optimal design which would then signify the end of the process. The

assumption of architectural genius hence became implicitly embedded in the method of design

of architectural students especially around the 1990s.The relevance of such genius has become

increasingly criticised as architecture has become less relevant and meaningful beyond its

obvious objective visual lure and contextual responsiveness is almost entirely negated.

Epistemological balance towards responsive architectural practice

The need for responsive architecture, especially in the complex contexts of the developing

world, has become urgent in order to engage with the social, economic and environmental

realities of such contexts. Consequently, artistic inspiration, individual artistic genius and the

coincidental creative spark that manifests as architectural product can no longer be sustained.

Tom Wiscombe affirms this in his statement: “The idea that innovation, whether scientific,

technological, or architectural, is a by-product of artistic chance or a result of singular genius

can no longer be sustained in the 21st century...” (Wiscombe, 2009, p. 59).The dynamic and

rapid changes in ecology, economies and social structures raise critical questions about the role

of architecture with particular reference to people, place and time.

Amos Rapoport1994 (cited in Salama, 2008, p. 103) states that architecture needs to develop a

quantifiable body of knowledge based on science and research, which implies a dramatic

departure from the artistic paradigm. This requires a fundamental shift in epistemology from a

predominantly intuitive / introverted artistic paradigm to an epistemological balance defined

by due regard for the rational / extrovert epistemology that is contextually responsive. This

raises the fundamental question of ethical social (architectural) practice: How can architectural

creation reconnect with context, defined by people, place and time?

This paper argues that the pedagogic approach of architectural education has to fundamentally

transform in order to inculcate ethical social practice in graduate architectural practitioners. In

this regard it is posited that epistemological balance needs to be established in architectural

education and the nature of its principal learning space, the design studio, needs to transform.

Jung (1976) in Psychological Types explained the four fundamental psychic functions of

consciousness, namely, intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking. These four psychic functions

are reinterpreted in order to determine the constituents of epistemological balance which is

posited as vital for the ethical social practice of architecture. Stamps III (1994) refers to Jung

in order to explain the relevance of psychological types to architectural education. He takes a

critical position of the predominant mode of architectural education which, he states,

emphasises feelings and imagination and, as such, socialises students within an artistic

paradigm. Stamps strongly advocates that current societal conditions demand skills other than

those that exist within the artistic paradigm, particularly thinking, sensing and extroversion.

Stamps posits that epistemological balance is vital to architectural education, as the

development of a range of diverse other skills need to be developed, beside the artistic, in order

to respond to the pressing demand for contextually responsive and relevant architecture.

Epistemological balance is achieved by a continual interaction between the right brain

(intuitive) and the left brain (intellectual), and the introvert (intuitive/creative) relative to the

extrovert (contextually rooted), in order to achieve the balance necessary for responsive and

relevant architecture (Stamps III, 1994). Furthermore, and vitally important, is that according

to the Jungian system, people can function within the psychological types both as individuals

and in groups. Stamps posits that designers need to engage each of the Jungian psychological

factors in or to function effectively in the information-rich, multicultural world.

Salama (2008, p. 100) postulates that architecture is created in a space of tension between

reason, emotion and intuition, and that building is an act that has to be rooted in the humane

tradition. This seems to be, implicitly, referring to the nature of architecture during the pre-17th

century. However the inference here is towards a pedagogical approach to architecture that

requires the application of multiple intelligences in a form of epistemological balance. He

further affirms that architecture has historically been viewed as art and emphasis was on the

acquisition of skills at the expense of knowledge. Salama argues that knowledge should be

integrated in order to foster the development of responsive knowledge that can be meaningfully

applied to the built environment. In order to achieve this, the architectural mind cannot merely

rely on the intuitive right brain, and therefore the rational and analytical left brain functions

become vital to responsive architecture. Salama posits that architectural education requires the

full activation of both sides of the brain, which he explains in his “Split Brain Theory” (Figure

3).

Figure 3: Diagrammatic representation of Split-Brain theory (Salama, 2008, p. 122)

Figure 3 illustrates the cognitive functioning of the left and the right sides of the brain. The left

side functions within the scientific paradigm, characterised by a sequential and logical / rational

method of processing information, where a series of parts are sequentially interpreted in order

to create understanding. Knowledge production within this paradigm is based on inferential

logic through the processes of thinking, perception and extroversion. The right side of the brain,

on the other hand, functions within the artistic paradigm, characterised by an intuitive /

imaginative way of processing information, where images and patterns are simultaneously

interpreted in a cyclic and holistic way in order to create understanding. Knowledge production

is based on intuitive understanding through feeling, intuition and introversion. According to

Salama (2008) architecture is created in the field between the intuitive and the rational and

therefore there has to be a balance between the left and right brain functions in the process of

architectural design.

Architectural design problems and contextual responsiveness

Traditionally, design studio projects were defined by abstract problems situated in abstract

contexts, focussing heavily on the development of intuitive abilities in students. Problem based

learning (PBL) has been a feature of architecture since the formalisation of architectural

education. Indeed, PBL was a method promulgated by Beaux-Arts education however,

problems were theoretical and abstract / hypothetical in nature and generally situated within

the intuitive / artistic paradigm. Such problems were generally a-contextual.

Salama states that many instructors regard architecture as an art of making rather than an act

of making, hence creativity is limited to intuition and talent. Much emphasis is placed on the

design problem rather than conceptual solutions and the design product is valued much more

than the exploration of responsive methods and processes of design. This dominant right brain

approach to architectural projects is rather inappropriate in dealing with the complexities and

challenges of real life contexts. Hence, the nature of the architectural studio design problem

becomes crucial to the success of the design studio. Salama (2008) comments on the real versus

the hypothetical design problem and recommends that design problems be situated in real life

contexts in order to engage with many contextual variables such as the relationship between

culture and the built environment. In Howarth (1966) at the UIA Conference in 1965 the plight

of the developing world was highlighted. It was emphasised that the “exhibitionist” nature of

Western architecture had no place in the developing world, which had to deal with the socio-

economic and environmental complexities of such context. The inadequacy of historic trends

that were colonially inherited by the developing world became evident.

The architectural profession in the developing world, however, has evolved over time from its

colonial heritage and the concerns for regional identity and response to multi-layered and multi-

cultured contexts has started to manifest. In this regard, the architectural profession, in the

developing world today, has much to offer the developed world. Architectural practice,

especially in the public sector, requires engagement with complex multi-layered and multi-

cultural contexts. This requires that the architect engages with many issues, other than the art

of architecture, such as socio-economic and socio-political realities, and environmental

challenges that plague and define the developing world. The indeterminate and dynamic nature

of contexts in the developing world places further challenges on the expertise of the architect.

The resultant process of constant engagement with existential realities fosters resourcefulness

and resilience in built environment professionals, as the architect is challenged to constantly

critically rethink and redefine his /her processes and methods of design. In this context, there

is no place for the “starchitect”. Much of the developing world consist of emerging economies

that are struggling to redefine their post-colonial identities. This is certainly the case in South

Africa as a relatively new democracy, which brings into question the value of architectural

heritage which, in the urban context, is almost entirely based on colonial inheritance. Architects

are constantly challenged to create new architecture albeit against the backdrop of a colonial

architectural heritage, which requires complex skills that historical models of architectural

education do not provide. Architectural education, in the developing world, is however still

largely based on colonial inheritance and both the theoretical content of curricula and the

pedagogic approaches of the design studio do not adequately prepare young practitioners for

the complexities of the real world context. In order to inculcate a culture of responsive

architecture, design problems have to engage with contextual realities fairly early in the

curriculum and design pedagogy requires a critical departure from the historically inherited

Beaux-Arts atelier model. The complexities of multi-layered contexts requires expertise

beyond that of the individual architect and the adoption of multiple intelligences that are

outside the general scope and training of the architect, becomes vital to design. The

incorporation of multiple disciplines in the design studio, working in collaboration, is vital to

the development of responsive architectural solutions.

Interdisciplinary collaboration

Hmelo-Silver (2004) suggests that design problems be resolved in collaborative groups. These

collaborative groups, however cannot merely consist of students of architecture as the

complexities of real problems requires the engagement of multiple intelligences, as mentioned

above. Wiscome further states: “In order to move into this space of innovation, architects will

have to accept the value of multiplicity and dynamic feedback over the retrograde nature of

authority. They will have to accept that architecture might not be about essences and theoretical

positions, but rather about exchanges of techniques, expertise and materialities in multiple

industries. They will have to accept that architecture is no longer a heroic centre, but one micro-

intelligence among many. They will have to let go and begin to love the swarm” (Wiscombe,

2009, p. 59).

This approach requires that the student of architecture becomes socially engaged both with the

research context as well as with the relevant allied disciplines and societal stakeholders. Salama

(2008, p. 110) states that “We are living in a complex world, a world in which no one discipline

will have the upper hand in solving environmental and societal problems as they relate to

architecture and the creation of liveable environments”. The complexities referred to here by

Salama, implies that the architect cannot take a position of a heroic genius, but rather a humble

position which is rooted in the concerns and aspirations of people in place at a particular time.

In this way, design solutions emerge through the rigorous negotiation between multiple

intelligences, defined by multiple disciplines, as responsive to the complexities of real life

contexts. Transdisciplinary knowledge hence results, through collaborative inter-subjective

engagement between different disciplines (Salama, 2008, p. 112).

The above discussion, brings into question the nature of the design studio, as the principal

learning space for architectural design education, which cannot continue to reserve exclusive

access to the architectural discipline. The traditional Beaux-Arts atelier model, which is still

today, the predominant mode of the design studio, encourages an introverted, intuitive

approach to architectural design based on abstract problems that are disconnected from the

realities of the complexities of the multiple layers of context. The ultimate outcome of the

Beaux-Arts atelier is architectural practice that is disconnected from society. Reference is made

to the earlier discussion on the disconnection between architecture and the act of building as

evident since the early to mid-17th century. The withdrawal of architecture from the act of

making and building, during the pre-17th century, into the academic paradigm focussed on the

art of making has to be critically analysed in order to reposition architecture as a social and

cultural asset. The resultant gap between theory and practice, due to an epistemic shift towards

an intuitive /introverted approach to architecture, severely compromises contextually

responsive architecture (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The gap between theory and practice (Author, 2014)

This gap between theory and practice ultimately results in a disconnection from the social

paradigm as architectural theory develops in a disciplinary silo, largely focussing on the work

of individual architects, and their theoretical and philosophical positions. The contextual

realities facing contemporary societies in both the developed and developing worlds, however

requires that architecture disembark from its position as an elite luxury and start to establish

itself as a valuable social asset. Hence the critical question of ethical social practice re-emerges.

Architectural practice is challenged to respond to contextual realities and cannot continue to

disregard people, place and time. How then can architectural pedagogy bridge the gap between

theory, practice and society in order to better respond to people, place and time?

This paper posits that the studio transforms in order to engage multiple disciplines towards

providing relevant architectural solutions that respond to the needs and aspirations of people,

with due regard to place and time, and thereby inculcate a culture of ethical social practice. It

may be contested that architectural education has always been multi-disciplinary. However,

while the consideration of modules from multiple disciplines has been a defining feature of the

modern architectural curriculum for some time, this paper argues that the studio be transformed

into an interdisciplinary learning space in order to draw on multiple intelligences and

experiences towards producing contextually responsive architectural solutions. In this regard,

the studio, as the principal learning space in architectural education, would be critically

reviewed in order to transform into an interdisciplinary collaborative and inclusive

environment.

It is firstly necessary to outline the nature of architectural education and learning. Figure 5

illustrates the current relationship between theory, practice and society. In this model, there is

a linear transmission between theory / academia, practice and society which illustrates a non-

integrated approach to architectural learning that has been most prevalent since the early 17th

century.

Figure 5: The linear transmission model between theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)

It is clearly evident that there is a gap between theory and practice, but also between practice

and society. The linear transmission model that conveniently separates these domains in a

mechanistic sequence is largely devoid of any synergy and is defined by disconnection. Society

happens to bear the consequences of architectural creation that results from disconnected silos;

disconnected from the existential context in which society exists.

The pre-17th century paradigm (Figure 1) however illustrated a holistic model based on

systemic synergies between the act of architectural creation and the existential context which

is diagrammatically represented in Figure 6.

Figure 6: The cyclic / systemic model of theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)

Figure 6 illustrates that theory and practice are intrinsically situated in context (place), which

defines, and is defined by society (people) in an adaptable and dynamic state of continuous

redefinition, hence the relevance to time. This inter-relationship is not mechanistic or linear but

rather cyclic, systemic and synergistic. In this model architectural theory and practice is rooted

/ situated in the existential context and while theory forms the conceptual framework for

practice, both theory and practice in turn are defined and developed by the existential context.

A dynamic and continuous dialogue therefore exists between theory, practice and society

situated within the existential context.

Context or place is further defined by a multitude of layers, broadly outlined as three inter-

dependent layers namely, the social, the economic and the ecological (Figure 7). Each of these

domains may further be subdivided into sub-domains, for example culture is a sub-layer of the

social layer.

Figure 7: The place of architecture, between theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)

While Figure 7 broadly represents a conceptual diagramme of the place of architecture in

context, it starts to reveal a multitude of possible inter-relationships and multiple disciplines.

The space in-between the domains illustrated within this model, reveals the complex nature of

architectural practice, which is driven by multiple informants in a dynamic state of flux,

requiring multiple intelligences. With reference to the concept of epistemological balance, it is

clearly evident that the architectural practitioner requires much more than artistic talent in order

to respond to the real challenges of these multi-layered contexts. This requires a fundamentally

rational approach, however with the added layer of creativity, in a cyclical or reflective way,

in order to develop innovative solutions to the built environment problems. The multitude of

influences and conditions that define the broad context within which the built environment

exists, requires the application of multiple intelligences that are beyond the traditional scope

and training of the architect.

It is further argued that the introduction of interdisciplinary modules to the architectural

curriculum is insufficient in addressing the requirement for multiple intelligences.

Furthermore, the architectural curriculum cannot be redefined by cross disciplinary modules to

such an extent that the core focus of architectural design education gets compromised;

architectural curricula are generally multi-disciplinary in any case. The fundamental problem

is that interdisciplinary curriculum does not necessarily translate into interdisciplinary practice.

The inculcation of ethical social practice, as the term implies, requires that knowledge be

applied in interdisciplinary practice towards the good of society. So how, then, would

interdisciplinary practice be fostered in architectural education?

This paper posits that interdisciplinarity is a spatial concept and therefore the learning

environment / learning space becomes the paradigm site for interdisciplinary practice. Within

this paradigm, the knowledge and skill of the architect becomes one amongst many

intelligences engaged in the development of responsive built environment solutions through

collaboration. The current general Beaux-Arts form of the design studio, therefore, requires

reconceptualization in order to become an interdisciplinary space for the collaborative

engagement of the various multiple intelligences, across many disciplines. What then

constitutes an interdisciplinary studio? Figure 8 illustrates a conceptual model for an

interdisciplinary learning environment.

Figure 8: Interdisciplinary learning environment, between theory, practice and society

(Author, 2014)

At the centre of this model is the hatched area circled by a dotted line; this is where the

interdisciplinary studio space exists, as an in-between space. It is this interdisciplinary studio,

as a learning space that bridges the gaps between theory and practice. This space, however,

exists within the broader societal context defined by the social, ecological and economic layers

of context. The implication of this position is that the studio design problem and the pedagogic

approach be situated in the real life context. The studio, hence becomes the paradigm site for

problem-based learning.

A conceptual model for an interdisciplinary studio

Figure 9 illustrates a conceptual model for an interdisciplinary studio which draws in

representatives of society in addition to the other informants of the design solution. Central and

vital to the interdisciplinary studio is a design problem that is situated in the real life context.

Figure 9: Conceptual model of the Interdisciplinary Studio (Author, 2014)

Jean Piaget (cited in Savery & Duffy, 1995) refers to the term “puzzlement” which he deems

necessary to stimulate learning, and which is derived from the individual’s interaction with the

social environment; this is fundamental to Problem Based Learning (PBL). Dewey (cited in

Savery & Duffy, 1995) refers to this inherent stimulus to learn, as the “problematic”. Within

this paradigm the teacher assumes the role of facilitator or mentor and challenges students’

thinking in order to arrive at responsive and relevant solutions. The learning process is based

on experiential interaction with the existential context and is cyclical or systemic rather than

sequential. This cyclical process requires the synthesis of theory and analysis of context

through abstract mapping but more importantly, experiential perception. Reference to the

existential context in the design development process is an ongoing part of the process, which

is also cyclical. Hence, design solutions are tested against contextual realities through reflection

and reflective practice. Here, the role of the teacher is to stimulate reflective thinking and

learners reflect on strategies and processes of learning in addition to learning content, necessary

for the resolution of design problems (Schon et al cited in Savery and Duffy, 1995).

PBL, within an interdisciplinary paradigm, requires that various intelligences and proposals are

synthesised in order to create meaning. This fosters symbiotic interaction and the result is that

design solutions are derived through collaborative synthesis where meaning is drawn out of

hybrid conditions defined by functional and cultural layering. Hybridity is a key concept of

post-colonial theory, which is regarded as a cultural phenomenon that, according to Homi

Bhabha (cited in Menin, 2003) opens up a space for translation – a place of hybridity. Hulme

et al (2009) refer to Bhabha’s third space theory, and hybridity as a theoretical basis in order

to explain how professional cultural knowledge can be explored and incorporated in responsive

solutions. This, according to Bhabha is vital in developing trans-professional knowledge in an

attempt to make connections between dislocated experiences and practices, within the

interdisciplinary learning space. This approach is intrinsically participatory and underlines the

core nature of interdisciplinarity. The nature of complex problems that emerge from real life

context inevitably require understanding of regional culture. In the context of the developing

world, there are few built forms that express regional cultural heritage; the translation and

transmission of cultural heritage is mostly facilitated through oral history. How then does an

interdisciplinary team of educated disciplinary experts, who have traditionally relied on written

and built forms for cultural interpretation, engage with the intrinsic regional culture of place?

It is postulated that the cultural value of architecture has to be a narrative that is understood by

the greater community of users of architecture rather than just the architect or the architectural

fraternity hence everybody, as users of the built environment, should be able to interpret the

general cultural narrative of architecture. This brings to the fore the question of cultural

literacy. It is argued here that cultural literacy is dialogical. While architects expect their

creations to be of meaning to society on one hand, on the other hand, architects have to engage

with the culture of place which their designs should respond to. Only then would the built form

express the cultural narrative of place while incorporating the advances of the technologies and

means of production of the time. The collaboration of various disciplines naturally aids cultural

interpretation as it draws on the various life experiences, however, it is strongly argued that

cultural significance and meaning requires a grounded, bottom up approach. This requires the

abandonment of expert cultures and the adoption of a humble approach to architectural design.

“To place architecture beyond expert culture into the practice of place-making is an attempt to

make the profession and discipline a more relevant, responsible, complex and contradictory

practice...between modern and postmodern theories and knowledge and social / cultural

practices...” (Schneekloth & Shibley, 2000, p. 130) This complex mode of place-making

requires that, apart from the professional team engaging on the ground with regional societies,

representatives of society become key participants in the process of architectural design as

early as the conceptual design stage. In this way, not only does the resultant architecture reflect

the aspirations of society, but society in turn finds its own expression of identity in the

architecture. In this way, architecture repositions and roots itself in place, and thereby starts to

become meaningful and legible to regional cultures.

Conclusion

The above discussion leads to the conclusion that ethical social (architectural) practice may

only be achieved by the transformation of architectural pedagogy and practice in order to

become contextually responsive and hence, reflect the needs and aspirations of society. This

requires an epistemologically balanced mode of engagement with contextual realities, and

collaborative engagement in a bottom-up approach which includes representatives of society

in addition to an interdisciplinary design / project team. The architectural studio as the

paradigm site for this engagement became the focus of the area of transformation in

architectural education. The suggested model of an interdisciplinary design studio is inclusive

of all stakeholders of the built environment; it is an adaptable space, dynamically responding

to the aspirations of people and the changes in time, thereby becoming intrinsically rooted in

the existential context. The studio hence becomes the key space for the inculcation of ethical

social practice in architecture.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Cret, P.P., 1941. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and Architectural Education. The Journal of the

American Society of Architectural Historians. 1(2): 3-15.

Jung, C.G., 1976. Psychological Types. Bollingen, Princeton, New Jersey.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2004. Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn.

Educational Psychology Review. 30(4): 235-266.

Howarth, T., 1959. Background to Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural

Education. 14(2): 25-30.

Howarth, T., 1966. Architectural Education: UIA in Paris. Journal of Architectural Education

(1947-1974). 20(3/4): 42-44.

Hulme. R, Cracknell. D, Owens. A., 2009. Learning in third spaces: developing trans-

professional understanding through practitioner enquiry. Educational Action Research. 17(4):

537-550.

Menin, S., 2003. Constructing Place: Mind and Matter. Rouledge: London

Salama, A., 2005. A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE

Transactions. 2(2): 16-31.

Salama, A.M., 2008. A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education,

International Journal of Architectural Research. 2(1): 100-128.

Savery. J.R., Duffy .T.M., 1995. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and its

Constructivist Framework. Educational Technology. 35: 31-38.

Schneekloth . LH, Shibley. RG., 2000. Implacing Architecture into the Practice of

Placemaking. Journal of Architectural Education. 53(3): 130-140.

Stamps III, A.E., 1994. Jungian Epistemological Balance: A Framework for Conceptualising

Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education. 48(2):105-112.

Wiscombe, T., 2009. Emergent Models of Architectural Practice. Yale Perspecta #38: 59-68.