Método Foque

Building
Knowledge in
Architecture
Richard Foqué
Show the young sailor how to sail; but don't so falsify the
compass and the chart that he can sail only in one direction.
John Fowles, 1964, The Aristos, 9.59.

Building
Knowledge in
Architecture
Richard Foqué
Part 1
Design Sciences
1 The Postmodern Paradox 16
1.1 The Legacy of Enlightenment 17

1.2 The Paradox of Postmodernity 20
1.3 The Position of the Professional Disciplines in
a Postmodern Society 25
1.4 The Divorce of Art and Science 26

2 Science, Art and Design:

A Methodological Comparison 30
2.1 The Method of Scientific Inquiry 31

2.2 The Method of Artistic Inquiry 33
2.3 Creative Thinking 36
2.4 The Method of Design Inquiry 41
2.5 Research by Design 45
2.6 A New University Model 46

3 The Nature of Design Activity 48
3.1 The Emergence of a Design Discipline 49

3.2 In Search of a Design Theoretical Framework 50
3.3 Aspects of a Contextual Design Model 54
3.3.1 Design as a Structuring Activity 54
3.3.2 Design as a Creative Activity 60
3.3.3 Design as a Communication Activity 63
3.4 Biperspectivism and Bipolarity 67
3.5 From the Unconscious to the Rational to the Creative 71
3.5.1 Design as an Unconscious Process: The
Triangle Locked 71
3.5.2 Design as a Rational Process: The Triangle
Broken 78
4
3.5.3 Design as an Integrated Process 96
3.5.4 Design as an Agent of Change 98

4 Understanding Architectural
Design Processes 102
4.1 The Use of Models as a Tool for Architectural Inquiry 103

4.2 Variety and Uniqueness 110
4.2.1 Variety of Architectural Theories and Uniqueness
of the Design End Product 112
4.2.2 Variety of Participants and Uniqueness of the
Design Process 114
4.2.3 Asymmetry of Knowledge and Symmetry of
Understanding 119
4.2.4 Variety and Uniqueness of Space and Time 122
4.2.5 Variety of Liabilities and Uniqueness of
Responsibilities 123
4.3 The Interaction of the Parts 124
4.4 Concurrent Architecture and the Integrated Practice 125
4.5 The Inversion of Design Capacity and Research Capacity 128
4.6 Architectural DNA and the Building Genome 132

Part 2
Case Study Research
in Architecture
5 The Methodology of Case Study Research 144
5.1 Making a Case: Investing in Human Capital 145

5.1.1 What is a Case Study? Definitions, Strengths
and Limitations 145
5.1.2 The Validity of Case-Based Knowledge 147
5.1.3 The Importance of Shared Knowledge 150
5.1.4 Practice-Based Theory Development 152
5.1.5 Case-Based Education 153
5
5.2 Case Study Research and Case-Based Teaching
Compared 156
5.2.1 Case Studies in Law
5.2.2 Case Studies in Medicine 161
5.2.3 Case Studies in Business Administration 163
5.2.4 Case Studies Methodologically Compared 165
5.3 Case Study Research in Architecture 171
5.3.1 The Loss of Comprehensive Knowledge
in Architecture 171
5.3.2 Building a Framework for Architectural
Case Study Research 174
5.3.3 The Characteristics of Architectural
Knowledge and Architectural Thinking 176
5.3.4 Case Study Typology in Architecture 181

6 A General Method for Case Project

Research in Architecture 188
6.1 Defining the Case Type 190

6.2 Selecting a Case 194
6.3 Addressing the Multilayered Characteristics: the
PCP analysis 195
6.3.1 Product Analysis 195
6.3.2 Context Analysis 200
6.3.3 Process Analysis 203
6.4 Addressing the Multivariateness: the ACCU-A
analysis 205
6.5 Concluding the Case 208

7 Building Knowledge through

Case Study Research 210
7.1 Case Study Research as an Engine for Architectural

Knowledge 212
7.2 Case Study Research and the Building of an
Architectural Knowledge Base 216
6
7.3 The Role of Case Study Research in Architectural
Education 218
7.4 The Importance of Case Study Research for
Internship 221
7.5 Case Study Research and the Architectural Practice:
Life-long Learning and the Road to Scholarship 223
References and Literature 226
Index 227
References 233
7
Introduction
Driving from the city center of Antwerp to Brussels, you pass the Royal Conservatory
as a last landmark of Modernist architecture before joining the motorway. With the
good fortune to be stopped at the traffic light, you can cast a glance at the ridge of the
building and admire one of the monumental sculptures of the Antwerp artist Jan Fabre.
It is called Man Measuring the Clouds.
The four-meter-high bronze statue is representing the artist himself, standing on a

library ladder, upright, gazing into the heavens while holding in his opened arms
a measure against the sky.
Although this iconic work of art has many layers, questioning the paradox between
art and science, between the measurable and immeasurable, between fact and fiction,
between the possible and unattainable, it inspired me to reflect on my own discipline,
the profession of architecture and the true meaning of being an architect.
The architect works in the field of tension between imagination and reality. The archi-
tect’s task is to convert the dreams and often the unreachable wishes of the client into a
buildable concept, which should be functional, technically resolved, and in compliance
with all building and safety codes, but at the same time must inspire a sense of well-
being and have the necessary aesthetic qualities to contribute to and enrich its context.
Is the architect the person who is measuring the clouds all the time? Is architectural
design, per se, an impossible task to perform? In other words, what is the essence of
being an architect? What are the skills, competences, and knowledge an architect needs
to perform as a true professional? These questions have puzzled me all the way along
my professional career as a practitioner, scholar, researcher, teacher, and administrator.
As a participant in architectural competitions, I have always been astonished by the

unique but valuable solutions generated from the same brief, the same context, the same
guidelines, from essentially the same problem. As a juror myself or as a member of
review committees, I find it challenging, if not impossible, to make absolute judgments,
9
Introduction
as criteria vary and are contextually bound; the outcome changes depending on the
viewpoint taken and viewpoints possible.
In my own practice, I have endeavored to use my professional experience and accumu-

lated know-how in an innovative way for every new commission. But I have always been
left with a feeling of discontent: Could I have done better? Did I use all the creative
potential and knowledge at my disposal, and did I not overlook essential elements?
I have envied other professions such as law and medicine, which seem to have a
growing, reliable, and robust knowledge base upon which to guide actions and
make decisions.
I concluded that the architectural profession, for some reason, does not have such
a knowledge base or, at least has it no longer. Indeed, examining history reveals the
existence of a consistent and thorough body of knowledge with respect to architecture
and building. The writings of Vitruvius in the first century B.C. are perhaps the most
popular in the Western World, but there are many more, reaching back to the ancient
world of China, Egypt, Greece, and the Middle East. Aspects of that knowledge were
considered secret and only accessible through the master builder: the Medieval lodges,
for example. Apparently, something happened along the way. Why did we abandon or
sacrifice that knowledge base? Why is the architectural profession drifting? Why are we
sometimes reinventing the obvious? Why do we struggle to cope with contemporary
technological evolution, and why is it so difficult to integrate in a satisfactory way new
findings and insights into our design solutions? Why are we losing ground, and why are
essential responsibilities of our professional practice being assumed by others?
While writing this introduction, and I suppose by good fortune, I received from the
esteemed scholar, my colleague and friend Werner Oechslin, his latest book Architekt
und/versus Baumeister. Die Frage nach dem Metier, (Architect and/versus the Master Builder.
The Question of the Profession), published in 2009. It is the written result of the 7th
International Baroque summer course at the Werner Oechslin Stiftung held in July
2006 at Einsiedeln, Switzerland. Oechslin argues that in modern times the architect
sees himself as the autonomous artist and creator, an image cultivated and enlarged
by contemporary architectural critique, but originating as early as the 17th century.
From being “the servant” to society in Vitruvian terms, the architect is becoming an
unassailable leader, who does not need to justify his decisions. It is a surprising conclu-
sion, but in line with Postmodern thinking and the dissolving of a clear value system.
It definitely refers to the current crisis with which contemporary art is confronted and
the media-saturated society in which we live.
In this book I aim to examine and discuss the above questions, guided by nearly
35 years of experience as a practicing architect, founder and principal of one of the
10
Introduction
largest architectural firms in Flanders, by my teaching and research on design theory

and design thinking, and by the critical reflections on my own career.
My perspective is based on the axioms of the pragmatic school. I believe that pragmatic
thinking, which is based on a crucial unity between experience and the process of
learning, and between conceptual thought and situational consciousness, can offer a
key to better understanding the design process. On that basis, I develop a theoretical
framework and practical instrumentation to establish a knowledge base for the disci-
pline of architecture.
In Part 1 of the book, I present design as a third way of investigating reality, apart
from scientific methods or the conception of art. By describing the scientific-
philosophical context, I extensively analyze the nature of design activity and the design
process, its inherent characteristics, and its differences from art and science. As such,
I argue that design processes have a research dimension an sich, which are essentially
contextual and action driven. My aim in this first part is to offer an integrated and
comprehensive perspective for understanding design activity, from both an epistem-
ological and a practical standpoint, resulting in an extensive discourse about the true
nature of architectural design processes.
Within this theoretical framework, Part 2 explains how case study research is a primor-
dial means to establish a knowledge base for the discipline and profession of archi-
tecture. From this premise, I compare case study research in law, medicine, and business
administration and develop a practical and comprehensive approach to case studies in
architecture. The methodology I present should offer a solid and general framework
wherein a consistent body of knowledge regarding architectural design processes can be
generated. This must allow for promoting deeper insight into the complex relationship
between context, product, and the design process, on the one hand, and between the
several stakeholders involved, on the other.
I have written in a sometimes provocative way, so that educators and students as well
as practitioners can use the book as a basis for discussion and an inspiring guide to
design processes in architecture and case study research, but also as preparation for
the profession. I truly hope that this book can offer the opportunity to reflect on the
impact and motivations of decision-making, leading ultimately to more responsive
design solutions.
The writing of this book was a painstaking effort, bringing together endless notes I have
made throughout the years, along with books, articles, and conference papers I read and
reviewed, to establish a consistent discourse.
11
Introduction
I wish to express my gratitude to the Artesis University College, member of the

Association of Universities of Antwerp, which granted me a sabbatical leave following
ten years of serving as Dean of the Van de Velde Higher Institute of Architecture and, at
the same time, provided a research grant for editing the book.
My sincere gratitude goes especially to the Enkeboll Foundation for the Arts and
Architecture. Their grant made it possible for me to stay two semesters as a visiting
professor in the School of Architecture at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. During
that period, I was able to devote most of my time to further research and writing the
manuscript of the book.
I could not have written this book without the inspiration of so many colleagues who
have offered varied and highly valuable perspectives. In 2000, I was invited as a speaker
to the first round table on case studies by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in
San Francisco. This event confirmed my belief in the importance of case study research
in architecture and ignited my ambition to write this book. The years following this
event brought me into contact with numerous eminent American scholars and practi-
tioners, working along the same lines of thought, many of who have influenced my
thinking. Among them I wish to acknowledge Harrison Fraker, Daniel Friedman,
Richard Green, Marvin Malecha, and Mike Martin.
With my brother René, professor of Philosophy and Theory of Law at the
University of Leuven and Director of the Research Center of the Foundations of Law, I
have had profound discussions on the epistemological aspects of the subject. Moreover,
he has directed me toward the analogy between the process of law-making and the
administration of justice, on the one hand, and design processes, on the other.
I must pay a special tribute to J. Chris Jones. He was my professor and supervisor
during my stay at his Design Research Laboratory at the Manchester University Institute
of Science and Technology during the late 1960s. Since then, he has remained a great
source of inspiration for me. He unlocked for me the world of design theory and the
emerging CAD technology, and he prophetically pointed toward the future impact of
CAD on design practice. I pay great tribute also to Teun Swinkels. My career as a practi-
tioner would not have been the same without him. He not only introduced me to the
praxis of a methodological approach to large-scale design problems but, above all, he
raised my consciousness of the ethical dimension of the profession.
A very special expression of gratitude goes to Laura Lee. For many years, she has been
my life-partner and my greatest source of inspiration. She has given me the necessary
energy to continue our common quest for understanding architectural processes and
raising the profession to the level of true scholarship — not to overlook her patience to
cope with my impatience.
12
Introduction
Many others have contributed to the realization of this book: Edith Macken, who trans-
formed my hand-drawn sketches of the figures and schemes into presentable graphics;
Cara Gilotti, who polished my English in a first editing; Samantha Haedrich, who did a
wonderful job by creating a consistent graphic concept to advance the content, support
the reading, and convey the message.
A most special acknowledgment goes to John Morris Dixon who thoroughly edited
the manuscript, while asking probing questions and making clarifications. His overall
work on the book defines him as an “editor extraordinaire”. His contribution no doubt
enhanced the book's quality and readability.
I thank the University Press Antwerp, imprint of Academic and Scientific Publishers
Brussels, its director Stefaan Janssens, and my personal publisher, Goedele Nuyttens.
Their belief in this book and the care they have given it is remarkable, making it a true
pleasure to work with them.
Finally, I want to dedicate this book to my three wonderful children, Nico, Floris, and
Lissa, and my grandchildren, Matteo and Elena. They are the future, and they will
continue to follow, in their own way, the road I tried to pave: a road to a better and more
humane world.
Richard Foqué
Antwerp 01.05.2010
13
Part 1
Design
Sciences
1
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
Niels Bohr, 1922, Noble Prize in Physics

Chapter 1
The Postmodern Paradox
1 1.1
The Legacy of Enlightenment
In 1687, when Isaac Newton described universal gravitation and the
three laws of motion in his treatise “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia 1
Mathematica,” he not only established the foundations for classical Koestler, A., 1959,
The Sleepwalkers,
mechanics, but also drastically and definitively changed the way that human Hutchinson, London.
beings experienced the world.
If humanity could unlock the laws of the universe, those of God
Himself, could we not also discover the laws that ruled all of nature and
humanity? People came to believe that human reason would spur a never-
ending progress in knowledge, technical achievement, and even morality.
Arthur Koestler, in The Sleepwalkers (1959)1, refers to it as though the human
mind had awakened after having spent centuries sleepwalking.
Newton’s work, including his systematic applications of algebra
to geometry and a workable calculus to scientific problems, contributed
substantially to establishing the momentum of the Enlightenment.
The Age of Enlightenment refers to the primary philosophical movement

in the 18th century Western World. (Some scholars also include the 17th
century, more commonly known as the Age of Reason). The Enlightenment
saw reason as the only means by which a consistent and authoritative
system of knowledge, logic, aesthetics, ethics, law, and politics can allow
the human being to obtain objective truth about the universe. Emphasis
was placed on empiricism and rational thinking, applied not only to
natural science but also to ethical and political problems on the levels
of the individual, the society, and the state. Reason was believed to be
the engine of progress. Rationalization, standardization, and the search for
fundamental unities occupied much of Enlightenment thought, and led to
arguments over proper methodology and the nature of understanding the
mechanisms of the universe.
17
Design Sciences
The Enlightenment, in its turn, has been the cradle of Modernity. Due to
2 the Scientific Revolution, the static, craft-based link that had existed between
Dewey, J., 1923,
Democracy and technological innovation and social change disappeared, making way for the
Education, The Modern Era and the beginning of what is commonly known as the Industrial
Macmillan Com-
pany, New York. Revolution. John Dewey, in his Democracy and Education (1923)2, argued that
the concept of “truth” evolved from the Classic Greek period through the
Dark and Middle Ages into Modernity. In the Classic Greek period, Dewey
stated, individuals could not arrive at their own knowledge, but had to rely
on external inquiries by others. “Results were to be accepted because of their
aesthetic consistency, agreeable quality, or the prestige of their authors.”
Later, during the Dark and Middle Ages, important knowledge was thought
to be divinely revealed. But with the rise of economic and political individ-
ualism during the Age of Reason, “emphasis was put upon the rights and
duties of the individual in achieving knowledge for himself.”
René Descartes, arguably the most important thinker of the Age of Reason,
gave a solid framework for this reasoning, rejecting the validity of all previous
sources of knowledge and certainty and replacing them with a single truth:
“Cogito, ergo sum”, “I think, therefore I am.” From that point onwards in
European culture, the human subject became the only and central source
of knowledge. Skepticism would be built into every inquiry, method would
hold a higher place than practice, and the mind would be separated from the
body. This is known as Cartesian Dualism. Descartes constructed a system of
knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and admitting only deductive
arguments. In epistemological terms, Descartes contributed significantly to
the idea that reason is the only reliable method of attaining knowledge: it
is the rationalist answer to skepticism. He searched for knowledge that is
“incapable of being destroyed” in order to build an unshakable foundation
on which all other knowledge may rest. This Cartesian thinking was to
remain the prevailing method of scientific inquiry throughout the following
centuries, widening the gap between reason and intuition, between what can
be logically argued and what can be intuitively felt, between science and art.
Undoubtedly this process had already started with the Renaissance. Although
considering art and science as equally valid methodologies to describe and
understand the world, the Renaissance had placed the human being central
in the cosmos. It was an essentially artistic revolution, but it paved the way
for the Age of Reason and later the Enlightenment. And by doing so it
prepared the way for the modernization of Western culture. There is indeed
a consistent thread throughout this evolution.
Building on the Renaissance legacy, the Age of Reason introduced
rational thinking and abstract reasoning. The Age of Enlightenment took
18
the next step by developing the idea of objective scientific knowledge and
introducing the concept of control. The human being must control reality, 3
Arendt, H., 1968,
because if we cannot we are not free: control as the prerequisite for freedom “The Crisis in
and autonomy. The Enlightenment saw the idea of objective knowledge as Culture: its Social
and its Political
instrumental for developing human freedom. In this worldview there is no Significance.”
place for emotions and passions, as they must be placed under control. In Between Past
and Future. Eight
Max Weber, as quoted by Hannah Arendt in her essay “The Crisis in Exercises in Political
Culture: its Social and its Political Significance” (1968) 3, distinguished three Thought, Viking
Press, New York.
main steps in this process that led to Modernity: first, the process of ration-
alization; second, the rise of abstraction; and third, the process of differen-
tiating knowledge into separate categories. According to Weber these three
movements are instrumental in controlling society. In the end, the process
leads to forms of systems thinking and structuralism, where there is no
place anymore for the living subject.
The result, during the 19th and 20th centuries, is the emergence of two
separate worldviews, alien to each other: that of the scientist, who searches
for the objective truth, and that of the artist, who makes his own indi-
vidual interpretations. With respect to this, it is no mere coincidence that
the 19th century gave rise to the systematic foundation of Academies of Art
and Conservatories all over Europe, completely separate from the existing
university structures, and that schools of engineering were born out of the
military academies and integrated into the universities.
It cannot be denied that over the last century human knowledge has grown
exponentially. Scientific reasoning and the Cartesian way of thinking have
undoubtedly contributed greatly to that explosion, but they have also caused
some very significant side effects. As human knowledge has grown quanti-
tatively, it has become ever more fragmented. Super-specialization has led
to the division of knowledge into increasingly narrow disciplines, occupied
in searching for their own consistencies, using their own jargons, frames of
reference, and methodologies. As a result, contemporary higher education
has organized itself “vertically,” based on these disciplinary subdivisions,
and by doing so the universities have lost their essential characteristic: their
“universality.” Universities have not only organized themselves differently
but have split themselves up into faculties, colleges, schools, departments,
teaching units, and research centers, each with their own faculty and staff,
individual budgets, and infrastructures. More and more resources are
devoted to research, which is becoming more and more specialized. Thus
the universities are creating cadres of specialist elites with high degrees of
concentrated knowledge, who know more and more about less and less. As a
side effect, universities are increasingly confronted with organizational and
19
Design Sciences
managerial problems, necessitating more administrators and administrative

staff, who may have their own agendas and priorities. This phenomenon
not only endangers the true missions of the university, which are teaching,
research, and service to the community, but is leading a great majority of
faculty, globally, to an awareness and fear that universities are being essen-
tially taken over by the administrators.
1 1.2
The Paradox of Postmodernity

The evolution of Postmodernity, seen within the global cultural and social
4 evolution of the last decades, is paradoxical and confusing, to say the least.
Giddens, A., 1990,
The Consequences of We live in a time of great intellectual controversy. On the one hand, science
Modernity, Stanford has never achieved so many breakthroughs as in recent decades; on the
University Press,
Palo Alto, California. other hand, we are confronted with uncertainty and the dissolution of a clear
5
value system. At the same time, it is a period of self-expression and indi-
Lyotard, J.F., 1985, vidualism, where aesthetic evaluations are open-ended, and visual culture
The Post-Modern
Condition, The Uni-
overshadows verbal culture. These conditions led, in the late 20th century, to
versity of Minnesota a serious questioning of modernity on all levels. Many scholars have argued
Press, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
that at this time we have to transcend modernity itself, and a great variety
of terms have been suggested to refer to this transition, as discussed by
Anthony Giddens in The Consequences of Modernity (1990) 4. Some of them,
Giddens states, refer to the emergence of a new type of social system, such
as the “information society” or the “consumer society,” but most suggest
instead that a preceding state of affairs is drawing to a close, as indicated
by such terms as “Postmodernity,” “Postmodernism,” “Postindustrial
society,” “Postcapitalism,”etc. It is useful at this moment neither to engage
in semantic debate about these terms nor to discuss in depth the underlying
discourses thereof.
More important, however, is to differentiate between Postmodernism and

Postmodernity. Postmodernism is a term primarily used to describe a style
or movement in the arts and architecture. It is composed of aesthetic or
artistic reflections upon the Modernist movement in those areas, which in
turn were inspired or driven by the rationale of modernity. Postmodernity,
on the contrary, refers to a shift away from attempts to ground epistemology
in cultural evolution and from faith in engineered processes, as delineated
by Jean-François Lyotard, one of the founders of the Postmodern movement,
in his The Post-Modern Condition (1985) 5. The Postmodern attitude, he states,
implies the recognition of a plurality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge,
20
in which science is not granted a privileged place. “We should put an end to
the ‘Grand Récit’”, Lyotard states. In other words, cultural development is not 6
Foqué, R.G.M.E.,
linear; there is not one great narrative; there are only contextual narratives. 1994, “De Legitimi-
The Classical Greek period grounded epistemology in cosmology, teitscrisis van het
Publieke Bestel”
early Christian scholars in theology. Descartes made a first important shift, in Vernieuwing en
grounding epistemology in mathematics, followed by the Enlightenment’s Eerste Kamer; Een
Reflectie op het
grounding it in cultural evolution by objectifying culture and by decontex- Openbare Bestuur
tualizing it, yielding the great narrative. Postmodernity opposes this view by vanuit de ‘Chambre
de Réflexion’ (Ed. C.
introducing context as a determining element. Baljé), Sdu Uitgeverij,
This introduction of context has far-reaching implications because it The Hague, The
Netherlands.
fundamentally calls into question the hierarchy between “La vie pensante”
7
and “La vie quotidienne” (literally the thinking life and daily life), as refer- Arendt, H., 1968,
enced by Jean-Luc Godard in his movie Vivre sa vie. This hierarchy and the “The Crisis in
Culture: its Social
debate concerning it had always been crucial to Western thinking, but dis- and its Political
appeared completely in Postmodern society. “La vie pensante” and “La vie Significance.”
In Between Past
quotidienne” have merged into a strange melting pot called “contemporary and Future. Eight
culture.” While the term culture has always referred to the primacy of the Exercises in Political
Thought, Viking
thinking human being, Postmodern culture is all-embracing and refers Press, New York.
to everything in life: from the painting of a garage door to a painting by
8
Rembrandt or Caravaggio, from a children’s abacus to the most advanced Finkielkraut, A.,
computer, and from a shamanic ritual to brain surgery. As such, the term 1987, La Défaite de
la Pensée, Gallimard,
“culture” has become meaningless. Containing all, it has become empty. Paris.
In this respect, René Foqué pointed out, in “De Legitimiteitscrisis van
het Publieke Bestel” (1994) 6, that in present society culture is increasingly
dominated by the law of supply and demand and has become a commodity
subject to market mechanisms. He referred to Hannah Arendt and her paper
on “The Crisis in Culture: its Social and its Political Significance” (1968) 7.
“Culture,” Arendt argues, “is being threatened when all worldly objects and
things, produced by the present or the past, are treated as mere functions for
the life process of society, as though they are there only to fulfill some need,
and for this functionalization it is almost irrelevant whether the needs in
question are of a high or a low order”. The wants of the day set the agenda
and intensify the banalization of culture. They lead to cultural egalitarianism:
all values are identical, because they have become commodities, which can
be traded one for the other.
It is precisely this phenomenon Alain Finkielkraut denounced in La
Défaite de la Pensée (1987) 8.In his analysis of Postmodernity, he showed that
as thinking progressed from Modernity through German Romanticism, it
shifted towards what he calls “the defeat of the thinking mind.” What is
the purpose of Postmodern thinking? According to Finkielkraut, it aims
to liberate man, treating him as an adult and no longer as an underaged
dependent, to speak in Kantian terms.
21
Design Sciences
The problem for Postmodern man, however, is that culture in the

9 traditional sense of the word has gone from being seen as a means of
Bauman, Z., 1989,
Legislators and Inter- achievement, to becoming an authoritarian obstacle. Therefore culture has
preters: On Modernity, to be reframed: truth and lie are interchangeable concepts, real and virtual
Post-Modernity and
Intellectuals, paper- are relative states of being, and beauty and ugliness have become mean-
back edition, Polity ingless. What is important is the individual feeling of well-being, with
Press, Cambridge,
England.
everyone both equal and different. If the aversion to culture becomes culture
itself, Finkielkraut concludes, then the mind has no content anymore: it is
10
Furedi, F., 2004, its own defeat.
Where Have All the
Intellectuals Gone?,
Continuum, London As a result, we are confronted at the beginning of the 21st century with a
and New York. strange paradox. On the one hand, we witness the banalization of culture.
On the other hand, the supremacy of the scientific mind has created a
highly sophisticated technological environment. We witness the downfall
of common ethical codes, but at the same time we see a growing global
concern for ecological problems, for human rights, and for redefining dem-
ocratic values.
The position of the intellectual in this paradoxical situation is at least
unclear, if not dubious. In his Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-
modernity and Intellectuals (1989) 9, Zigmunt Bauman defined an intellectual
as one who possesses the ability to rise above the partial preoccupation of
one’s own profession or artistic genre and engage with the global issues of
truth, judgment and the taste of the time. Where the term “intellectual” orig-
inally referred to a certain class of people who worked primarily with ideas,
it evolved into a description of the group of people who claim to be experts
and professionals.
Frank Furedi, in his Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? (2004) 10,
argues that the structural changes associated with the decline of the tradi-
tional intellectual have resulted in the growing impact of the market upon
intellectual life. Institutionalization and professionalization, together with
the growing power of the media and the erosion of public opportunities
for the exercise of autonomy, have diminished intellectualism per se. He
states that disappointment with the promises of The Enlightenment and
Modernity and the consequent sense of powerlessness regarding our ability
to know the future have led to a relativist approach towards knowledge and
the replacement of the pure pursuit of knowledge with a pragmatic focus on
specialized micro-knowledge. He pleads for the return of an “intellectual”
attitude, especially at universities. This analysis confronts us with one of the
major challenges for the coming generations: to build an intellectual culture
based on the revaluation of a consistent ethical value system. Investing
in intellectual capital will be absolutely necessary to provide the coming
decades with a sustainable and affluent community. The notion of reflexivity
22
— the act of reflecting on what we do and think — is an important key to

this, as it may deepen our awareness about how we do things and how we 11
Foqué, R.K.V., 1971a,
should do them. A real practitioner is a person who is capable of reflecting “Socio-Technology or
on that practice as he acts. Solving the Paradox”
in Wetenschap en
I have argued extensively, for instance in my “Socio-Technology Samenleving, nr. 25,
or Solving the Paradox” (1971) 11, that academia should provide for such a Amsterdam.
framework and vision. But it is precisely the universities, where the rise of 12
Arrowsmith, W.,
academia over the last decades has resulted in relentless academic careerism, 1970, “The Creative
that have enlarged this paradoxical gap. Universities, constantly on the run University” in Crea-
tivity (ed. Roslansky,
for money and compromised by research grants from industry and gov- J.), North-Holland,
ernment, remain aloof, in their own world. As William Arrowsmith puts it Amsterdam.
in his essay “The Creative University” (1970) 12 : “They have chosen technical
problems as their forte, they cannot help a society suffering increasingly
from problems which have barely been defined before they are compounded
by other problems too simply solved.”
The result is an increasing alienation between the world of science
and the “real” world outside. Mass media, including the Internet, are
“educating” the people in their own way. These media have largely eclipsed
formal education. They constantly shape public opinion and popularize
knowledge on a global scale, without being subject to any scientific check
and without any explanatory coherence or contextual framework. Research
has proven that 95 percent of the Internet information is not authentic. But
the public perceives the information delivered by the system to be authentic
and valid. The “correctness” of the information is an attribute of the medium
that produces it; a fact is “true” because it is transmitted through a “true”
medium. Facts are no longer absolute but have become manipulative goods,
permanently subject to change.
Within this controversy, the contemporary intellectual is reluctant to
be tagged “elite”. He may participate in trivial media shows and television
games, almost to prove that he is part of that contemporary “culture,” that he
is “à jour”. This has led to a schizophrenic and untenable position. The intel-
lectual must be an expert, a true professional, but at the same time he needs
to be popular, a media figure, an icon of the video-clip culture. Scholarship
and trends have to go hand in hand. In a certain way, the intellectual has
made a caricature of himself. This image not only perfectly fits the notion
that culture is a commodity, but the contemporary intellectual has become
a commodity himself and lost his critical function in society. A true profes-
sional must be capable of applying a theoretical truth in a practical situation.
He must be able to decontextualize theory and recontextualize it. He must be
able to differentiate between application and reflection.
How can we redefine the position of the intellectual? How can we re-
evaluate culture as the engine of progress? How can we reintegrate artistic
23
Design Sciences
and scientific thinking into a comprehensive epistemological framework?

13 If, as Bauman asserted, the intellectual should have the ability to break
Piaget, J., 1970, “La
pluridisciplinarité et through the borders of profession or artistic genre, he should become a
l’interdisciplinarité transdisciplinary thinker.
dans les universités”,
in Le Monde, The concept of transdisciplinarity harks back to Jean Piaget, who
10 Sept., Paris. in his remarkable 1970 article in Le Monde 13, “La pluridisciplinarité et
l’interdisciplinarité dans les universités,” pronounced a most important dis-
tinction in the way specialist knowledge can be integrated. He defines three
levels of integration:
1 The level of multidisciplinarity, where information from another
discipline is used to solve a problem in one’s own discipline.
One borrows external information but does so without feedback
to the other discipline. Neither the lending discipline nor the
borrowing one is enriched — beyond a momentary gain by the
recipient — by information transferred in only one direction.
2 The level of interdisciplinarity, where the collaboration between
several disciplines results in a real interaction of knowledge and
understanding, of approaches and methods. All disciplines are
enriched by each other and the collaboration results in added
value, in the creation of true synergy.
3 The level of transdisciplinarity, where several disciplines are not
only interacting but all are reintegrated into a greater whole, a
more nearly total system on a higher level, where the traditional
boundaries between disciplines disappear.
Does that mean that micro-specialization is no longer necessary or that

highly qualified professionals should be banned from the university scene?
No. But this specialized knowledge should be incorporated into a compre-
hensive body of integrated knowledge, within a global system of values and
well-considered choices. Academia should again provide a context in which
learning can be merged with the responsibility for society that it has created.
Learning should be revalorized in the sense that the creators of knowledge
should also be held accountable for the application of that knowledge. This is
especially the case for the professional disciplines such as architecture, engi-
neering, medicine, and law. They are based on practical knowledge leading
to action and have at the same time a great impact on the human being and
on society. They deal with issues related to health, safety, and welfare. In
many countries, these professions are therefore institutionalized and subject
to special legislation. From the perspective that practical knowledge leads to
action, the professional disciplines have to provide in their specific theories
for reflection on these actions. This role is vital. “They have access to the real
24
world as a generator of basic research problems and a source of data,” as

Herbert Simon phrased it in Administrative Behavior (1969) 14. 14
Simon, H., 1969,
Administrative
Behavior, Macmillan,
New York.
1 1.3
The Position of the Professional

Disciplines in a Postmodern
Society
The professional disciplines are the connectors between basic science and
the real world, and between theoretical concepts and practical applications.
They reduce the gap between real world problems and academic research,
research increasingly captured by its own agenda. Important here is that the
professional disciplines develop their own bodies of knowledge and method-
ological frameworks, in order to confront these disciplines within a transdis-
ciplinary context. By doing so, they may become the initiators of a new intel-
lectual attitude.
To further investigate the role of the professional disciplines in this process,

it is necessary to analyze their position in a Postmodern society. Some of
them are considered to have “scientific” status (medicine, law); others
classify themselves as belonging to the “applied sciences” (engineering).
In the field of business administration, the tendency to introduce quanti-
fiable models and techniques is apparent. Moreover, it is widely known that
professional schools within research universities privilege a systematic,
preferably scientific, approach. Within this context architecture occupies a
somewhat different and unique position. Since the emergence of modernity,
architecture, considered to be the oldest discipline with professional status,
finds itself in an ambivalent situation. Perceiving themselves as practi-
tioners of a “creative” profession, architects hover between science and art.
As a result of this, the position of architectural schools within research
universities is often unclear, debated and even questioned. In many cases
throughout the world, this has led to a gradual or sudden change in the
curriculum, transforming the school from a professional status into a more
theoretical, scientifically oriented institute. I will return in a following
chapter to this burgeoning dichotomy.
For the moment it is important to elaborate on this tendency for

universities to put almost exclusive confidence in technical rationality.
25
Design Sciences
In The Reflective Practitioner (1987) 15, Donald Schön rightly pointed out
15 that in the early decades of the 20th century the professions sought to gain
Schön, D.A., 1987,
The Reflective Practi- prestige by establishing their schools in universities, embodying the idea
tioner, Jossey-Bass, that practical knowledge becomes professional when its problem-solving
San Francisco.
instruments are grounded in systematic and scientific knowledge. It is rec-
ognized that at the modern university, there exists a hierarchy of knowledge,
which starts with basic and fundamental science at the top, applied science
in the middle, and technical skills at the bottom. This hierarchy reflects
itself in the academic status of faculty. As a consequence, and to enhance
their academic position, professional schools present themselves as science-
based and align their research programs accordingly, risking a widening
gap between what they are teaching and what the real world demands. The
capacity for future-oriented reflection, for innovation and creativity, are not
possible outside an action perspective. They are caught, according to Schön,
between the prevailing idea of rigorous knowledge, based on technical ration-
ality, and the awareness of indeterminate zones of practice that lie beyond its
canons. To put it another way, how can top-down knowledge and bottom-up
knowledge be reconciled, within a reflective context? The answer to this
question is not merely epistemological, to be seen as a problem of either
deductive or inductive learning processes, but goes back to the essence of
professional practice, grounded in the field of tension between “technical”
performance and “artistic” creation. It is exactly in that field of tension that
every professional discipline grounds its own knowledge base.
At issue is the difference between the use of scientific theory in
practice and the creation of new knowledge through practice.
1 1.4
The Divorce of Art and Science

It is explained above how the ideas of the Enlightenment have led to a meth-
odological separation of art and science, hence to a reduction of knowledge
to rational thinking. Then over the past century, technology, as the product
of scientific theory, has become the dominant agent in cultural evolution, a
driving force and value-setting standard.
Technology represents the collective notion of all knowledge, tech-
niques, and realizations by which science finds it application. It has pene-
trated all levels of human existence and become an essential dimension of
everyday life. Moreover, it has become a conditio sine qua non for existence.
Today’s society would collapse without its technical framework of unpre-
cedented complexity. Technology constantly models our society and changes
26
“humanistic” thinking into “technical” thinking, in which functionalism and

efficiency are the driving forces. 16
Foqué, R.K.V., 1972,
In such a world, creativity is reduced to the act of perfect decision- “Creativity is Power”
making on purely rational grounds. Rational and logical thinking are in The Architectural
Association Quarterly,
opposed to intuition, which belongs to the realm of “artistry.” Intuition is an nr. 4, London.
intriguing phenomenon but often dismissed as non-academic and non-sci- 17
entific. In fact, intuition is a not-yet-conceptualized and not-yet-systematized Van Peursen, C.A.,
1968, Informatie,
form of knowledge. It is rooted in tradition and based on a combination een interdiscipli-
of theory and practice. As we have seen, Postmodernism is questioning naire studie, Het
Spectrum, Utrecht,
tradition, hence it is questioning intuition. Art and technology, together with The Netherlands.
religion, as the primary ways through which culture is adapted, are cut off
from each other. Scientific investigation and research are so highly esteemed
that the academy now considers its methods applicable even to art.
In an earlier essay, “Creativity is Power” (1972) 16, I discussed at length how

the discrepancy between art, science, and technology can be cancelled out,
based on the assumption that both, in their methods as well as in their
results, fail to show an absolute character, but complement each other in
the way in which they approach reality. Art, science, and technology can
all be seen as a means by which man can understand, intervene, change,
model, and structure his environment. He can discover structures in the
outside world and try to modify and restructure them. In fact, man is acting
then as a “designing being,” whereby designing is defined as the activity of
transforming human space into a new and structured reality. The creative
moment, which C.A. Van Peursen, in his Informatie, een interdisciplinaire
studie (1968) 17, called “the moment of inventiveness,” is essential to this
process of structuring reality. This structuring, in both the technical and
the artistic sense, provides for new insights and interpretations. On the one
hand, a structure may emerge as a totality, without its individual elements
recognized or even seen; on the other hand, a structure can be built from
its analytical elements. Children’s drawings are good examples of the first,
literature and mathematics of the second. But in both processes the principle
of synergy is important, the fact that the whole is more than the sum of
the parts.
Bike-riding is a good illustration of this synergy. If you describe every
part of a bike in extreme detail and add these descriptions together, you will
by no means have produced an appropriate description of a bike. You have to
start from scratch and consider the bike as a structured object with its own
characteristics. Having done that, you may be able to explain the rationale
behind bike-riding, but by no means would that explanation enable you to
become a bike-rider. In other words, it is not by knowing the why that you
master the how. You need to add the artistic dimension, the art of bike-riding.
27
Design Sciences
It is the synergy on the level of the parts that makes you understand the tech-
18 nological phenomenon of a bike; it is the synergy on the level of practice that
Koestler, A., 1964,
The Act of Creation, makes bike-riding a complete human achievement, where product, process
Hutchinson, London. and use merge into a whole.
19 The same leap of insight occurs when someone approaches a river,
Hadamard, J., 1945,
The Psychology of
looks at a tree, and thinks that it would make a good boat. At that moment
Invention in the he is restructuring sets of data dealing with both knowing and acting, which
Mathematical Field,
Princeton University
interact with the situation in order to solve a problem. In this sense, crea-
Press, Princeton, tivity is a way to designate the ability to discover existing structures, invent
New Jersey.
new ones, and modify the old.
20
McLuhan, M., 1967,
Understanding Media, Creativity is not only a measure for originality, but also an essential feature
Sphere Books Ltd., of human behavior — the unity of thought and action in a given situation,
London; also 1994,
Understanding Media, whereby the borderline between rationality and intuition disappears.
The Extensions of Examples of this process with respect to science and art were described at
Man, MIT Press,
Cambridge, length by Koestler in The Act of Creation (1964) 18.
Massachusetts. A problem arises, however, when this structuring activity is no longer
21 used as an exploratory technique to understand the “real” world, but becomes
Van Peursen, C.A.,
1968, Informatie,
reality an sich. It excludes personal choice and makes further exploration
een interdiscipli- impossible. There is nothing left to discover; everything is put in place.
naire studie, Het
Spectrum, Utrecht,
With respect to that Jacques Hadamard, in The Psychology of Invention in the
The Netherlands. Mathematical Field (1945) 19, suggested that Greek geometry lost its creative
impetus because of exaggerated structural visualization and an excessive use
of diagrams. It seems that at this moment we are in a similar situation. The
traditional scientific method is considered to be the only orthodox way of
structuring reality. This belief is deeply built in into our educational system
and hardly questioned. Traditional education still operates in the sphere of
“what” rather than “how,” making learned knowledge increasingly obsolete
in an ever faster-changing world. Can the way artists see reality provide some
insight into this dilemma?
“It was always the artists, who built the arks of Noah,” wrote McLuhan
in Understanding Media (1967) 20. Hieronymus Bosch, in his Temptation of
St. Anthony, integrated two colliding worlds: the Medieval world — flat,
iconic, discontinuous, pious, and tradition-based — and the new world of
the Renaissance — three-dimensional and based on new discoveries and
humanistic thinking.
Art has always been a place for conceptual thinking and holistic vision:
the melting pot of reason and intuition. Intuitive thinking and rational
thinking are not opponents; they are the twin poles between which the artist
structures reality. “The way in which innovation functions is the basis for its
restructuring character,” wrote C.A. Van Peursen (1968) 21. This corresponds
28
to Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts, as propounded in The Structure

of Scientific Revolutions (1970) 22. A paradigm is an example of a general rule 22
established by combining theory and practice. A shift of paradigm is the 23
Kuhn, T., 1970, The
introduction of a new theory for which there is not yet a reference to a specific Structure of Scientific
practice. In other words, there is no precedent. Innovation and renewal by Revolutions, The
University of Chicago
their nature demand creativity and therefore must rely on a harmonious Press, Chicago.
integration of art, science, and technology. Insight into their operational
methods provides the space and means for the human being to become a
designing being.
29
2
When I examine myself and my methods of thought,
I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant
more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking.
Albert Einstein, 1921, Nobel Prize in Physics

Chapter 2
Science, Art and Design:
A Methodological Comparison
1 2.1
The Method of Scientific Inquiry

Scientific inquiry aims to establish objective truth regarding the world
around us. Science is not only interested in a mere description of reality or 23
De Groot, A.D.,
in a quantifiable order of facts and data, but aims explicitly at understand- 1972, Methodologie,
ing and explaining the phenomena that constitute our world. Science is Mouton & Co,
The Hague, The
constantly in search of the underlying principles and the connection Netherlands.
between different sets of phenomena in order to be able to predict and
control future behavior and effects. The scientific method tries to structure
those findings into logically coherent and universal systems, called scientific
theories. In the Classical tradition, this method is grounded in empiricism
and the Cartesian principle of universal doubt. It has led to the well-known
empirical cycle based upon five stages enumerated by Adriaan De Groot
in Methodologie (1972) 23:
• Observation, where empirical facts are gathered and organized;
• Induction, where hypotheses are formulated;
• Deduction, where special consequences from these hypotheses
are deduced in the form of testable predictions;
• Testing, where the predictions are verified to be true or false;
• Evaluation, where the results of the tests confirm or refute
the hypotheses.
The distinction between observational recordings and the formulation of a

hypothesis is in many cases unclear — and often difficult to maintain. The
scientist usually has already formed a certain point of view regarding the
problem under investigation. Thus, empirical data is collected according to
31
Design Sciences
criteria derived from that viewpoint. Therefore it is inevitable that during

24 the observation stage hypotheses have already been introduced, however
Popper, K.R.,
1959, The Logic of implicitly.
Scientific Discovery, According to Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) 24,
Hutchinson, London.
pure facts are never available. All observation is theory-laden and is a
25
Popper, K.R., 1963,
function of both purely subjective factors, such as interests, expectations,
Conjectures and wishes, and values and of what is objectively real. This assessment seriously
Refutations: The
Growth of Scientific
questions the traditional empirical method: how to distinguish between
Knowledge. Rout- facts and assumptions, between facts and ideas, and determine the point at
ledge, London.
which an assumption becomes a testable hypothesis. The scientist can work
inductively or deductively. He can either try to systematically gather relevant
data in order to formulate testable predictions, or he can try to formulate a
hypothetical theory, which he can then try to verify by observational findings.
The history of science gives examples of each: the systematic measure-
ments by Newton, using Kepler’s and Tycho Brahe’s observations; the
systematic descriptions and classifications by Darwin, leading to the Theory
of Evolution; and the Theory of Relativity put forward by Einstein as a con-
sistent theoretical system, explaining certain phenomena, which only later
was validated by experiments and observations.
Einstein’s approach starts from a problem to be solved rather than a
series of observations, which require explanation.
In Popper’s terms, this means that the scientist makes selective
observations to test the extent to which a given theory can function as a satis-
factory answer to an occurring problem. In that sense, Popper rejects the
inductive method as the characteristic method of scientific inquiry. This
leads to his Theory of Falsification: a theory is scientific if and only if it is
refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory is
an attempt to refute or to falsify that theory, and one genuine contra-fact
falsifies the whole theory, as Popper states in Conjectures and Refutations:
The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963) 25. This is based on the paradox that
stems from the relationship between verification and falsification: while it
is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by mere
reference to experience, one single contra-fact weakens the corresponding
universal theory to the level of rejection and completely discredits it. In other
words, the exception does not prove the rule; it refutes it. In those terms “all
knowledge is provisional, conjectural and hypothetical.” We can never prove
our scientific theories, we can only confirm or refute them. Confronted with
this dilemma, we can only eliminate those theories that are obviously false
and accept the theories that remain unfalsified. This stresses the importance
of critical thinking to science. It is only by thinking critically that we can
eliminate false theories and trust that the best of those remaining have the
highest explanatory capacity and predictive power.
32
Science, Art and Design: A Methodological Comparison
Popper’s theory on scientific inquiry is associated with the positivist

approach to science and is still based on the pre-assumption that critical
testing is possible at all — that there exist critical tests, which can either
falsify a hypothesis or give it a strong measure of corroboration, given that
the hypothesis is true until falsified by new facts. In that sense, science can
be seen as an ongoing process, where definite results are never obtained, but
our knowledge about the world nonetheless increases permanently through
a constant process of conjectures, refutations, and verifications. Important
here is the fact that the testing should be repeatable and universal, in other
words, context-independent. It is only under those circumstances that a well-
defined hypothesis can acquire the status of scientific theory. The engine of
this process is the scientist: through his research, he seeks to constantly turn
theories into more robust and consistent explanatory models of reality.
1 2.2
The Method of Artistic Inquiry

Where science aims at finding the truth, art is said to aim for beauty. In
that sense, it is considered neither measurable nor able to be described in
objective terms, but instead is tasked with generating an aesthetic experi-
ence. It should appeal to the different human senses, stimulate them while
engaging them in a mind-expanding dialogue.
The definitions of art in the specialized literature are numerous and
often contradictory. But rather than trying to define art as a concept, it seems
more relevant to try to answer the question of what art brings to the world,
what is its meaning, and what is its purpose. At first glance, art seems to be
contraindicative of one of the basic laws of nature: the desire for survival.
Art seems to be in essence indifferent to the primary functional needs of
the human being, and from that perspective it could even be character-
ized as afunctional. Nonetheless, examples of artistic expression have been
found dating from the emergence of man, the wall paintings in the caves of
Lascaux in the south of France dating back between 15,000 and 20,000 B.C.
being good examples. They demonstrate a most significant aspect of human
behavior, the need to express perception of the surrounding world and to
communicate it with others. It distinguishes man from other species.
The translation of experiences through communication media is
an essential feature of art. Each art form uses the appropriate language of
expression: drawing, painting, and sculpture in the fine arts; dance, music,
and acting in the performing arts; and photography, cinematography, tele-
vision, and animation in the visual arts. This dialogue between perception,
33
Design Sciences
self-expression, and communication is the essential cornerstone of artistic

26 inquiry.
Bachelard, G., 1968,
The Philosophy of Unlike the scientist, the artist does not try to answer the question of
No: A Philosophy of how the world is the way it is, but rather reflects upon reality and, through
the New Scientific
Mind, Orion Press, that reflection, questions it. Art does not provide answers; it poses questions.
New York. It holds up a mirror and solicits reaction.
27
Pallasmaa, J., 2007,
“The Space of Time
In The Philosophy of No: A Philosophy of the New Scientific Mind (1968) 26,
– Mental Time in Gaston Bachelard describes the development of scientific thinking as the
Architecture” in
The Antwerp Design
progression of scientific thought from animism through realism, positivism,
Sciences Cahiers, rationalism, and complex rationalism to dialectic rationalism. This is, in his
Nr. 17, Henry Van de
Velde College of
view, the closed orbit of scientific thought: “The philosophical evolution
Design Sciences, of a special piece of scientific knowledge is a movement through all these
Antwerp.
doctrines in the order indicated”. Juhani Pallasmaa, in his “The Space of
Time – Mental Time in Architecture” (2007) 27, rightly points out that artistic
thinking aspires to develop in the opposite direction: “An artistic image
works its way from the realist, rational, and analytical understanding back
towards a mythical and animistic grasp of the world.” Therefore, Pallasmaa
concludes, science and art move past each other in opposite directions along
the same continuum:
Whereas scientific thought progresses and differentiates, artistic
thought seeks to return to a de-differentiated and experientially
encompassing understanding of the world. Artistic imagination
seeks expressions that are capable of mediating the entire com-
plexity of human existential experience through singular images.
Artistic inquiry deals with immeasurable parameters and intuitively-made

decisions and by its own nature cannot be subject to verification or falsifica-
tion. This is not because art does not produce hypotheses about the world.
In fact, each work of art is a hypothesis per se, but because these hypotheses
can never be true or false, right or wrong, they have to keep their status of
hypothesis forever. This is the true meaning and only purpose of art. The
artist makes a statement, takes a position, and by doing so puts it to the indi-
vidual appreciation of the other. The work of art is the message conveyed
to the spectator by a chosen medium. The receiver can accept or reject that
message, go into a dialogue, or neglect it, but can never refute it on the
basis of its being not true. Artistic hypotheses per se can never be true or
false, right or wrong, as they are not guesses as to how the world works, but
instead suggestions from the artist to the viewer of how the world might be
perceived. In that sense the terms “right” or “wrong” are meaningless.
By definition, the method of artistic inquiry transcends boundaries
between disciplines. It sees the world as a whole of interrelated facts, ideas,
34
and processes. The real artist juxtaposes these facts and ideas, interprets
them and confronts them with his personal values and beliefs in an act of 28
Shlain, L., 1991, Art
enlightened and liberating insight. In that sense, art belongs to the meta- & Physics, Harper
physical, trying to produce “clarity” about the world by questioning reality Perennial, New York.
and answering those questions with a synergetic hypothesis. 29
McLuhan, M., 1967,
Understanding Media,
This metaphysical dimension of art may explain why true art is also Sphere Books Ltd.,
London; also 1994,
visionary. In Art & Physics (1991) 28, Leonard Shlain argued extensively that Understanding Media,
although the artist usually may not be well versed in scientific knowledge, The Extensions of
Man, MIT Press,
images, metaphors, symbols and icons used in art have been found to Cambridge,
presage thought patterns of a future scientific age not yet born. Shlain Massachusetts.
quoted the art critic Robert Hughes: “The truly significant work of art is the
one that prepares the future. The essence of the avant-garde myth is that the
artist is a precursor”. In the same sense, Marshall McLuhan in Understanding
Media, The Extensions of Man (1967) 29, defined art as “advanced knowledge,”
indicating its function of preparing the future.
The fine arts — especially the development of painting in Western culture —

provide ample evidence for this statement (but equally interesting examples
can be found in music, literature, drama, and dance).
Hieronymus Bosch painted a chaotic and pessimistic world, where
all belief in human rationality had vanished. He was reacting against a
world constantly at war, where the Medieval value system was disrupted and
subject to an emerging humanism, but at the same time he demonstrated a
deep insight into the human character. With a new kind of symbolism and
the introduction of abstract concepts derived from a vocabulary of dreams
and nightmares, he not only paved the way for the Surrealist movement in
the 20th century, but also can be seen as a forerunner of psychoanalysis and
Freud’s theory of the subconscious.
Jan Vermeer and Rembrandt, the unsurpassed masters of light
and shadow — the chiaroscuro, influenced by the work and technique of
Caravaggio — brought painting almost as close to 20th century photo-
graphic techniques as possible, where the shadow of one color darkens
another, and light and shadow demonstrate the personality of the portrayed
character.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Turner, arguably one of
the England’s most creative painters, spent his life searching for a way to
transmit light on a piece of canvas. By doing so, he broke ground for the
Pointillist movement, a style of painting in which small distinct points of
primary colors create the illusion of a wide range of secondary colors. The
technique relies on the ability of the human eye and mind to mix and
combine the primary color dots into an almost infinite range of secondary
35
Design Sciences
colors. Seurat and Signac, both living in the second half of the 19th century
and the main protagonists of this technique, were in fact the forerunners
of a technology nowadays commonly used in color television technology, in
CRT and LCD screen technology and in inkjet-printers.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Braque and Picasso, the
founders of the Cubist movement, started to conceptually break down
their objects, analyzing them by identifying the constituent elements and
reassembling them in an abstract way. At the same time they were experi-
menting with recombining different sections and viewpoints of an object,
producing not only an original and strange image, but also a new insight
into reality. The same idea is behind today’s 3-D scanning technology.
As a result, we can argue that the value of artistic inquiry is defined by the
extent that it not only comments on the past and present, but that it predicts
a possible future.
It re-establishes the dichotomy between art and science and the role
creativity plays in both.
1 2.3
Creative Thinking
Despite the fact that the scientific method tries to be rigorous and exact, the
30 criteria for what is a true fact are not always clear or evident, and the criteria
Koestler, A., 1964,
The Act of Creation,
for beauty are even more indistinct. The borderlines between art and science
Hutchinson, London. are in fact less well-defined than the contemporary scientist may be com-
fortable with. So the mathematician speaks about an “elegant” solution, the
surgeon about an “aesthetic” operation, the theatre critic about “two-dimen-
sional” characters, the computer artist about bits, pixels, gray-scales. Music,
in fact, is the transformation of a mathematical equation into an aesthetic
experience.
In fact, as Arthur Koestler argued in The Act of Creation (1964) 30,
there is a continuous gradient between science and art: from objective to
subjective, from verifiable truth to aesthetic experience. This continuum
leads from the hard sciences through medicine to the social sciences, from
engineering through architecture and design to the performing and fine
arts. The Renaissance recognized no boundary between art and science;
they could only be conceived as one big continuum. The separation of
science and art is a historically recent phenomenon, as we have argued
above. This has led to the relegation of intuition and creativity to the arts,
rational thinking and discovery to the sciences. It has led to the perceived
36
incompatibility between function and form, utility and experience, necessity

and luxury. 31
Ehrenzweig, A., 1970,
The positivist approach to scientific thinking in relation to innovation The Hidden Order of
and new discoveries has in the end confined creative thinking to the service Art, Paladin, London.
of perfect decision-making on rational grounds, strictly following the rules 32
De Bono, E., 1970,
and paradigms of scientific inquiry. But new discoveries in quantum physics Lateral Thinking:
and the construction of “virtual environments” in information technology Creativity Step by
Step, Harper & Row,
have called this dualistic thinking into doubt. London.
In The Hidden Order of Art (1970) 31, Anton Ehrenzweig rightly pointed
33
out that in creative work there are no limiting rules. Creative work creates its Alger, J. and Hays
own rules, which may only be known after the work is finished. This means C., 1964, Creative
Synthesis in Design,
that creative thinking always involves parameters unknown to the thinker; Prentice Hall,
nonetheless he must be able to handle these parameters in order to achieve New York.
some precise outcome. Action painting, where, as the term indicates, the
artist wishes to act rather than think about the underlying meaning of his
painting, is a good example of this. At first glance, this seems to be a com-
pletely random process where, apart from the characteristics of the paint
and the canvas involved, all parameters are unknown, and there are indeed
no limiting rules. However, there are in fact moments of reflection through-
out, as revealed by Jackson Pollock, commenting on his own method of
working: namely, that after every series of actions he took, he stopped to
reflect on these actions, which in turn led to new actions. The Constructivist
movement, although at the other end of the modern art spectrum, uses in
its turn unusual rules of geometry and calculus. Here too the artist submits
himself to a partly unknown world of interrelated parameters, which seems
to have no relation with the reality he wants to produce and the form he
wants to give to it. Only in and during the progression of his work is the
hidden structure revealed as a whole.
Edward De Bono, among others, noted in Lateral Thinking: Creativity
Step by Step (1970) 32, that a creative process is directly related to the mech-
anisms of the thinking brain. He introduced the term “lateral thinking”:
activity concerned with the choice of the most appropriate steps out of a
multitude of possibilities. The search is not for a definite solution, but
for a policy of behavior that is more effective than others. In their Creative
Synthesis in Design (1964) 33, John Alger and Carl Hays defined creativity as
the ability to choose the right series of actions from a number of alterna-
tives, which cannot be evaluated beforehand but are original and effective.
These observations lead us to a first conclusion: a creative process
is not based on intuition alone, but can only exist when intuitive action is
supported and complemented by reflective thinking. I will call this “the
creative moment” — the moment where the walls between rational and
intuitive thinking disappear and give way to new insight. Through this
37
Design Sciences
process, new discoveries are made and novelty is created, in both art and in
34 science. Gutenberg invented the printing press by intuitively combining his
McKinnon, D.W.,
1970, “Creativity, rational observations of the signet ring, the process of coin minting, and the
a Multi-faceted winepress. In the same way, Keppler combined astronomy and physics.
Phenomenon”,
in Creativity, a In all these processes, intelligence and creativity complement each
Discussion at the other: the first by stating the problem on an abstract level, the latter by
Nobel Conference,
(Ed. Roslansky), collecting evidence from personal experience and applying it to the first.
Stockholm- During the creative process, there is a constant confrontation between the
Amsterdam.
abstract and the concrete, between the known and the unknown, between
the familiar and the alien. During the creative process, the left side of the
brain (primarily tasked with aspects of problem-solving) works together with
the right side of the brain (considered the locus of innovation, discovery, and
art), hence aspects of problem solving are more related to the left side and
innovation, discovery and art more to the right part. The process is aimed at
finding and is therefore a cornerstone of heuristics.
Crucial in that process is the discovery of the secret analogy or the
connecting switch, which bridges the gap between the two parts, creating
a new neurological pattern. I will call these new patterns mind-networks,
systems of neurological interconnections, which emerge suddenly without
any rational evidence or explanation, but which are able to produce novelty
in one or another form, from scientific breakthroughs to innovative techno-
logical applications, from a virtuoso performance to the creation of a revo-
lutionary work of art. The process of incubation, which keeps the problem
under investigation permanently on the subconscious agenda even when
the mind is occupied by totally other ones, seems crucial for building these
mind-networks. Within this context, intuition can be seen as a thinking
activity, which happens at a relatively low level of explicitly conscious
reasoning, where rational thinking would refer to the other extreme of
the scale. They are two aspects of the same creative process, the two poles
between which that process can evolve. A creative person, according to
Donald McKinnon, in “Creativity, a Multi-faceted Phenomenon”, (1970) 34, is
the one who reconciles in his intellectual endeavors the opposites of expert
knowledge and the childlike wonder of naïve and fresh perception.
Fig. 1.2.1 illustrates how the creative process proceeds between these dual
polarities. Three phases can be distinguished, and each is characterized by
its typical fluctuation on the rational-intuitive scale.
Phase 1: Initiation and Preparation. The aim is to familiarize
oneself with the problem under investigation. It is thoroughly
studied, and serious and systematic work is done on searching
for a solution, supposing it will be easily found; but not much
38
1.2.1
The Creative Process in Time
Phase 1
Initiation –
Preparation
rational
thinking
Phase 2
Incubation
intuitive
thinking
Eureka
Moment
Phase 3
Consolidation
rational intuitive
thinking thinking
Design Sciences
progress is made. Thinking here takes place on a strong and

35 increasing rational level. The left side of the brain is fully
Florida, R., 2002,
The Rise of the activated.
Creative Class, Basic
Books, Cambridge, Phase 2: Incubation. The problem is off the conscious agenda.
Massachusetts. The right side of the brain takes over and thinking becomes
strongly intuitive; creative mind-networks are being constructed.
The end of this phase is characterized by a moment of recog-
nition of the solution: with reference to Aristotle in his bathtub,
we will call it the “Eureka point”.
Phase 3: Consolidation. The solution is elaborated, verified, tested
and applied. Right and left sides of the brain work together along
an established mind-network. During this phase equilibrium is
reached on the rational-intuitive scale, and the mind completes
the creative process.
Most scholars in the field agree that a creative mind works in a multidimen-
sional and experiential way. A wide spread of experiences and the ability
to look at situations from diverse perspectives is recognized as the trigger
for creative solutions. Richard Florida points out in The Rise of the Creative
Class (2002) 35, that “the varied forms of creativity that we typically see as
different from one another — technical creativity (or invention), economic
creativity (or entrepreneurship) and artistic and cultural creativity, among
others — are in fact deeply interrelated”. This is clearly not coincidental,
and history proves that periods of technological innovation go hand in hand
with breakthroughs in art and a rich cultural life, embedded within a pros-
perous and stable political climate. Moreover scholars, scientists, and artists
seem to be attracted to certain centers of creativity: Rome in antiquity, Bruges
in the Middle Ages, Florence during the Renaissance, Antwerp in the 16th
century, Amsterdam in the 17th, Paris in the 18th, Vienna in the 19th
century, the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, along with new
centers in Asia, the Middle East, and South America emerging today. More
than ever in recent history, we see that architecture and design, recognized
as the creative professions par excellence, are shaping everyday life. They are
no longer exclusive to the wealthy class but recognized by the man in the
street as important and enriching, and thus have gained economic value and
status. This development points to a major shift in human evolution, com-
parable to the transition from a nomadic culture to a sedentary one, from an
agricultural and craft society to an industrial one, and from the Industrial to
the Information Age. Florida calls it the rise of the creative class in his book
of the same name: the emergence of the creative economy, where knowledge
and information are the tools and materials of creativity.
40
1 2.4
The Method of Design Inquiry

More than ever before, we live in a man-made world, at a point in history
where that man-made world challenges the natural world and comes 36
Simon, H., 1996,
into conflict with it. This puts great responsibility on mankind. Although The Sciences of the
science’s primary mission is to investigate the hidden mechanisms of the Artificial, 3rd Ed.,
MIT Press,
natural world, trying to understand their workings and behavior, at the Cambridge,
same time it aims to control nature to improve the prospects of mankind’s Massachusetts.
survival. Here technology comes in, or what are commonly referred to as

the applied or engineering sciences. Applied scientific research starts where
the fundamental scientific inquiry ends. Using an established scientific
theory, possible applications are developed. These are the engines of tech-
nological innovation through which the man-made world emerges. Starting
from a technological hypothesis, based on a scientific theory, prototypes are
developed and tested — not in the sense of true or false but on the level
of rational applicability. Does it work? Can it be used and in which way?
What are the effects? Can it be made or produced and at what cost? Are
there ethical concerns? These are the kinds of questions underlying applied
sciences. Engineers call it the verification process. If the answers prove
positive, the technological hypothesis may be realized and becomes part
of the man-made world. At first glance, there seems to be a great analogy
between applied research and the research activity within a design context,
but a closer look uncovers some fundamental differences.
Design thinking is per se innovative, heuristic, and experimental, driven by

empathy and focused on problem-solving. It essentially deals with problems
with multiple stakeholders and fuzzy boundaries, and where the solution is
found between disciplines. Therefore designers should bring to the table a
broad, multi-disciplinary spectrum of ideas from which to draw inspiration.
Definitions of design are numerous, varied, many-sided, and divergent. But

they all agree that designing has to do with a course of actions and deci-
sion-making that aims to solve an acknowledged problem. From a method-
ological standpoint, I will use the definition put forward by Herbert Simon
in The Sciences of the Artificial, (1996) 36, where he defined design as every
course of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones
and conceiving artifacts to enable such changes. Therefore, Simon argued,
every designer should ask: “Which of the worlds that can be designed is
the best one?” This seemingly empirical question, governed by the laws
of scientific inquiry, raises fundamental issues related to the underlying
41
Design Sciences
societal value system in which the designer operates, along with his own
37 ethical beliefs. It also points to methodological differences: if the essence of
Dewey, J., 1923,
Democracy and designing is the search itself for a “best” solution, it obeys not only the laws
Education, The of scientific inquiry but also the logic of heuristic thinking.
Macmillan Com-
pany, New York.
38
As we have seen, scientific research is based on the testing of a hypoth-
Putnam, H., 1995, esis put forward in the form of an explanatory model. In art, testing a
Pragmatism: an
Open Question,
so-called hypothesis is senseless, as argued above. The essence of the design
Blackwell Publishers, inquiry, on the other hand, aims to develop in parallel as many hypotheses
Oxford, England,
and Cambridge,
as possible, not on the basis of exploratory models but of exploring ones,
Massachusetts. models with probing capacity. Testing seeks to identify the most desirable
39 result. It is at the same time an optimizing, judging, and subjective activity.
Foqué, R.G.M.E., In scientific inquiry, testing is based on verification. The results should be
1998, “Global
Governance and objective, repeatable, and universal. In design inquiry, testing is based on
the Rule of Law” both verification and appreciation. It is subjective, essentially contextual,
in International
Law, Theory and and therefore not repeatable.
Practice, (Ed. K.
Wellens), Kluwer
Law International, It is essential in the process of design inquiry that the hidden theoreti-
Amsterdam. cal and ideological framework of assumptions and premises, on which
decisions are based, is made explicit. This is not to say that it should be a
general metaphysical analysis, but it should make transparent how the
specific design beliefs are determining the normative knowledge about
the physical world and how this physical world should be organized. As a
process, it refers to the process of pragmatic thinking put forward by John
Dewey in his Democracy and Education (1923) 37, and later by Hilary Putnam
in his Pragmatism: an Open Question (1995) 38. Pragmatic thinking reflects a
unity of the process of learning and experience, of conceptual thought and
situational consciousness. It is based on a backward and forward connection
between what we do to things and what we enjoy or suffer in consequence.
Under such conditions, doing becomes trying: a kind of experiment to find
out what the world is like and what it should be. It is per se heuristic, as
the purpose is to discover at the same time the existing connection between
things and the possibilities of connection.
Such an approach involves the use of argumentative and rhetorical means

as a necessary precondition, analogous to global governance, as maintained
by René Foqué in “Global Governance and the Rule of Law” (1998) 39. Within
this context, rhetoric and argumentation are not to be seen as mere skills
or techniques of persuasion but as necessary components of a pragmatic
approach to looking for the best design solution. Testing design hypotheses
is therefore inextricably bound up with the ethical normative framework of
society and with its epistemological principles. As a consequence, design
42
relies on the methodologies of both science and art. Understanding how

they interact within a design process is crucial for understanding its role in 40
Foqué, R.K.V.,
solving socio-economic problems and issues in an innovative way. 2001a, “On the
True Meaning of
Research by Design”
Moreover, as I have argued in “On the True Meaning of Research by Design” in Proceedings of
(2001) 40, an instance of testing is necessarily conducted within a strongly the International
Conference on
determined context, consisting of physical and non-physical elements: non- Research by Design,
physical due to the formal, legal, and historical elements surrounding the Delft University
Press, Delft,
test and physical because every design inquiry is related to the constraints The Netherlands.
and characteristics of a physical environment, be they real, virtual, or 41
imaginary. For the test to be replicable, all of these elements must be held Prigogine, I. and
Stengers, I. 1985.
constant. The temporal nature and the uniqueness of the test itself make Orde uit Chaos, Bert
this impossible. Moreover, putting the design hypothesis to the test in itself Bakker, Amsterdam.
changes the context. Therefore the test will never be repeatable. A striking
analogy can be found in developments within quantum physics, where the
results of a scientific experiment directly depend on the way the experiment
is designed and the research methods that are used.
In his revolutionary work on chaos theory Ilya Prigogine (1985) 41, intro-
duced the concept of coincidence. His chaos theory assumes that dissipative
systems — systems that remain in a high state of unbalance as energy is
constantly added — will themselves structure this condition of chaos.
According to Prigogine, this process aimed at reaching a certain level of
organization is entirely based on coincidence and is irreversible. As we will
argue in the next chapter, design can be defined as an attempt to structure
the environment, following the law of dissipative systems. In this sense,
design inquiry consists of determining which elements constitute the design
context and which structural patterns determine its cohesion. Therefore it
will always fluctuate between the analysis of objectively perceptible facts
and the weighing of subjective value judgments.
This is where the notion of creativity comes in. The analysis of
creative processes makes it clear that they occur in the zone between uncon-
scious intuition and rational thinking, allowing the designer to propose
original solutions to a given problem.
43
1.2.2
Scientific Research, Research by Design, and Artistic Production Compared and Applied
the existing world
Scientific Research Research by Design Artistic Production

How Things Are How Things Could Be How I See Things
Observation Observation Observation

Facts Facts Facts
Visions Visions
Beliefs Beliefs
Reflection
Interpretation
Expression
One Hypothesis Multiple Hypotheses Individual Hypothesis

Explanatory Model Exploring Models Questioning Model
Testing Testing Testing Pointless

True or False Most Desirable Individual
Verification Verification and Application Synergetic
Objective Subjective Questioning
Repetitive Unique and Not Repeatable Confronting
Universal Contextual Visionary
Cause-Effect Coincidental Communicative
Scientific Theory Hypotheses In Actions Hypothesis

Static Dynamic Perpetual
Reality Explained Reality Changed Reality Questioned
Applied Scientific Design by Research Art

Research
Technological Design Artistic

Application Application Interpretation
the future world

1 2.5
Research by Design
The creation of novelty and, combined with it, the ordering of the environ-
ment in Prigoginian terms are the keys to understanding the process of
design inquiry and the grounding for what I will call “research by design,”
opposed as it is to traditional scientific research, which is mainly based on
empiricism, analysis, and deduction.
Therefore, research by design constitutes a heuristic activity par
excellence. Heuristics deals precisely with the discovery of something new
by means of a methodological system. The heuristic method is based on
hypotheses in action. This means that a design hypothesis can be adapted,
converted, adjusted, and replaced during the testing without being deemed
true or false. This is the reason why several hypotheses can exist next to each
other at the same time.
While scientific inquiry tries to answer the question how things are, design
inquiry tries to answer the question how things could be. Both challenge
the physical world. Art, on the contrary, transforms reality by giving it new
meaning, raising the physical to the metaphysical.
A close comparison between pure scientific research, research by
design, and the method of artistic inquiry, what we will analogously call
“research by art,” shows that the concepts of contextuality, coincidence, and
pragmatic thinking are essential in a world that does not merely exist, but is
at the same time in a continuous process of being created. In this process,
research by design is an essential cornerstone, as it conceives possible
realities, investigates their desirability, changes the existing reality by imple-
menting a new one, and evaluates the resultant reality. This implies that the
design activity is equally subject to the method of artistic inquiry. Design
indeed relies on the methods of both science and art, and from there derives
its own methodology.
While science tries to explain the world, art questions reality and tries to
answer the very personal question, “How do I see and perceive that world?”
Art-based research is based on observation, vision, values, beliefs, reflection,
interpretation, experience, and expression, all at the same time. It leads to
an individual hypothesis about the world, based on a questioning model and
impervious to testing. It is a “forever” hypothesis — questioning, synergetic,
confronting, visionary, and communicative.
Research by design tries to explore and change the world, and by
doing so, tries to gain knowledge about how man analyzes and explores the
45
Design Sciences
world and brings it into culture: how we create a man-made world. It does
so by creating design applications, relying on technological knowledge and
artistic interpretation (Fig. 1.2.2).
1 2.6
A New University Model

The above analysis gives rise to rethinking the classical university model.
42 In Understanding Media 42, McLuhan wrote that Gutenberg had been
McLuhan, M., 1967,
Understanding Media, the father of all assembly lines, meaning that at the moment the printing
Sphere Books Ltd., press was invented, the Industrial Revolution emerged. From that moment,
London; also 1994,
Understanding Media, mass products began to conquer the world, leading to a centralized and
The Extensions of globalized world. Repetition, homogeneity and the succession of cause and
Man, MIT Press,
Cambridge, effect have since become the keys to understand a world that is essentially
Massachusetts. mechanistic, as we have outlined above.
Our current educational models are indebted to that world and deeply rooted
in it. That mechanistic world has led to specialization and standardization,
with increasingly competitive behavior as a consequence. As a matter of fact,
competition is still the driving and motivating force in education. Evaluation
and grading systems, the admissions process to higher education, and the
awarding of grants, for example, are based on it.
As in the old mechanical production methods, where materials were pressed

in designed molds, students are considered as objects that can be molded
and trained in preconceived educational programs. In the traditional sense,
education and training mean unilateral information transfer. It is evident
that this model is no longer tenable in a world based on information tech-
nology and creative thinking. Division, specialization, and uniformity will
be replaced by totality, diversity, and extreme engagement. A society and an
environment are being created that become information itself. This means
that emphasis will no longer be on training, but on discovering. The teacher
of the future will be less occupied with information transfer and more on
creating the best possible study environments. Therefore, the responsibility
for the effectiveness of education will shift from the students to the faculty.
Information technology will bring about a new type of student: the

“shopping student”, who is constantly seeking individualized packages of
information in a global university supermarket. Packages will be tailored to
the aims and goals set by the individual student to benefit a professional
future and possible career. Ultimately, this may lead to the disappearance
46
of the traditional diplomas, degrees, and educational structures in general.

Students will move freely throughout the educational landscape. Motivation
will come from the learning experience itself, and the classical bound-
aries between subjects and disciplines may become nonexistent. Education,
training, and work will become elements of the same process.
As a result, the role of universities will change drastically. Gradually, they

will become research centers, instead of educational institutions, and
university students will become research assistants. As a result, the gap
between professional education and academic education will become not
only wider but also fundamentally different. The former will reproduce
the knowledge that the latter will be producing: universities as actors of
innovation and discovery, engines of change.
Change will become the steady state of society, instant and global. Basic
concepts of right or wrong, real or fiction, true or false, will lose their
meaning. Society, on its way to lose its own history as the collective
memory, will be permanently rewritten in an almost perverse manner.
We are touching the paradox of a world based on global information tech-
nology. Uniformity and integration of macro systems on a meta-level will
lead toward what McLuhan called “tribalization of the culture; discon-
tinuous kaleidoscopic, parallel and instant.” The film oeuvre of David Lynch
is an example of this. There is no story line: he is creating worlds of simul-
taneous happenings, of everything at the same time in parallel universes:
worlds ruled by chance, without any logical relations between events, worlds
in a permanent state of coming into being.
This analysis confronts us with one of the major challenges for
coming generations: to build an intellectual culture based on reevaluating
the existence of a consistent ethical value system. Investing in intellectual
capital will be absolutely necessary to provide the coming decades with a
sustainable and affluent community.
To date, the focus has been placed on science and technology as the
primary agents for change. We have seen that we are moving toward a new
creativity-based socio-economic model. Such a model can only be put into
practice when it values critical thinking. Emphasis should be placed on the
development of creative and design industries. Design in the next decade
will move beyond the product, beyond the workflow; it will deal with total
processes, entire environments, and global experiences, creating added
value and synergy.
In such a context, architects and designers can play an important role,
as they are trained to analyze and understand the present and, from there,
formulate possible futures.
47
3
One can envisage a future in which our main interest in
both science and design will lie in what they teach us about
the world and not in what they allow us to do to the world.
Design like science is a tool for understanding as well as
for acting.
Herbert Simon, 1978, Nobel Prize in Economics

Chapter 3
The Nature of Design Activity
1 3.1
The Emergence of a Design

Discipline
It is only since the beginning of the 20th century that design, with the
exception of the architectural profession, has been slowly raised to a pro- 43
Braun-Feldweg,
fessional discipline from its prior position somewhere between the arts and W., 1966, Industrial
crafts. It was the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of mass produc- Design Heute,
Rowohlt, Hamburg.
tion that triggered the need for well thought-out products, as the economic
penalty for ill-considered production became very high. At the same time,
human scale as the measure for all things was being replaced by the
“machine scale”, thus introducing new fabrication methods and new forms.
The “Machine Age” was asking, so to speak, for a new esthetic approach, a
reconsideration of the notion of “beauty.”
In Industrial Design Heute (1966) 43, Wilhelm Braun-Feldweg argued
very clearly that in the Arts and Crafts Movement, led by John Ruskin and
William Morris, this is exactly what was at stake. They strongly opposed a
so-called “art industry,” which tried to profit by reproducing traditional style
elements by industrial production. Therefore they preached the return to the
craft tradition and the authenticity of the craft form.
The emergence of Jugendstil and Art Nouveau has to be considered
within that context. Eminent representatives of that period such as Peter
Behrens, Otto Eckman, Bernard Pankok, Richard Riemerschmid, Otto
Wagner and Henry Van de Velde were, in their early work, still strongly
influenced by the theories of Ruskin and Morris, but they rather rapidly
started to recognize function as a form-determining parameter. They started
to advocate a new approach to art and design, and by doing so they were to
become the founding fathers of the Modern Movement in design. Their new
approach was based on two main principles:
49
Design Sciences
1 A new functional relationship between art and society, adjusted

to “the emergence of the new modern man” and his technical
achievements;
2 An avant-garde art, which should be able to change social
structure in an active way.
At the same time, they pleaded for a return to the typical craft situation,
where designer, maker, and user were strongly interconnected. But unlike
Ruskin and Morris, they embedded their vision within the new industrial
society. The most significant of their contributions may be their definitive
liberation of art and architecture from traditional methods, techniques, and
representations by linking the creation of form to a socio-cultural function-
ality. They replaced “l’art pour l’art” with art grounded in a social reality, thus
paving the way for Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus.
But it was only after the Second World War that design definitely
gained professional status. The Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm,
Germany, founded in 1954 by Max Bill, a former Bauhaus graduate, played a
major role in that process.
1 3.2
In Search of a Design Theoretical

Framework
Although the necessity of good design is now generally accepted as a prereq-
uisite for innovation and economic growth, it has yet to develop a coherent
knowledge base along with a methodological frame of reference. I can see
three important reasons for this:
1 Design activity has always been considered as an individual
act, based on intuitive thinking, where the artistic dimension is
important and still prevailing;
2 Methodological critique is made impossible by the absence of a
reflective moment, through which questions about the deeper
meaning of design decisions could be asked.
3 The essentially interdisciplinary character of design, through
which it cannot be classified or fitted into the traditional discipli-
nary typology.
50
All three reasons are interrelated and are highly determined by the develop-
ment of Western thinking since Descartes, as already noted. Crucial here is 44
Gropius, W., 1935,
the duality between the acting and thinking subject, in this case the designer The New Architecture
and the object of his activity, the design produced. This thinking supports and the Bauhaus,
Faber and Faber,
the idea that the content of design activity is defined by a certain quest, an London.
exploration of the “true character” of it. It sustains the view that this activity 45
possesses a character of its own, which manifests itself to the designer Jones, J., and
Thornley, D., 1963,
during the process of designing. The notion that the essence of design is Conference on Design
in the doing may be the primary reason why a useful ad hoc terminology is Methods, Pergamon
Press, London.
still missing. The designer indeed has no common, precise, and consistent
language with which to communicate about his activities and question them
through logical discourse. From a cultural and historical standpoint, there
has apparently been no need for it, as all polemic discussion regarding, for
instance, architectural quality have always been carried out on the level of
visual design results, rarely on the level of the underlying process. Attempts
to form a more “scientific” approach have been limited to inquiries into the
theory of form, color, composition, style, art history, building technology,
and physics.
Even the intensive efforts by the Bauhaus to formulate the basis for a
global and coherent “Gestaltungstheorie” have not overcome this mindset.
Central to the Bauhaus philosophy was the concept of “the project.” It was
seen as the integration of hitherto irreconcilable dualisms: art and tech-
nology, technology and science, the abstract and the concrete, conceptual
thinking and hands-on experience, the individual and the society.
From this, the Bauhaus distilled new design concepts and interpre-
tations regarding space and form, function and material, and new produc-
tion methods, contextually embedded in a social-political value system.
Nonetheless, these honest attempts never moved past a certain fogginess,
typical for a discourse still hovering between a romantic “hineininterpre-
tieren” and an immature desire for rationality in a domain still dominated
by an eroded academism. Statements by Walter Gropius (1935) 44 are illustra-
tive in that respect:
It is now becoming widely recognized that although the outward
forms of the new architecture differ fundamentally in an organic
sense from those of the old, they are not the personal whims of
a handful of architects avid for innovation at all cost, but simply
the inevitable logical product of the intellectual, social and
technical conditions of our age, [and further] We are returning to
honesty of thought and feeling.
It was only in 1962, at the first conference on design methods in London

(1963) 45, that a serious concern was raised about the absence of a coherent
51
Design Sciences
theoretical framework that described the design activity. Since then, serious
46 attempts have been made to establish a consistent design theory. The
Alexander, C.,
1964, Notes on the work and writings by Christopher Alexander (1964 and 1979) 46, Geoffrey
Synthesis of Form, Broadbent (1973) 47, S.A. Gregory (1966) 48, John Chris Jones (1970) 49, Bryan
Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Lawson (1980) 50, among many others, are examples of such attempts. More
Massachusetts. recently, there have been contributions by Omer Akin (2006) 51, Richard
Alexander, C., 1979, Buchanan (1995) 52, Nigel Cross (2001, 2006) 53, and C. Thomas Mitchell
A Timeless Way of
Building, Oxford
(1993, 1996) 54, A comparative study shows that there still exists a great
University Press, diversity in definitions and approaches, characterized by:
New York.
47
• A kaleidoscopically wide variety of viewpoints;
Broadbent, G., 1973,
Design in Architec- • A personal and often hermetic approach by each individual
ture, John Wiley & author;
Sons, London and
New York. • The use of borrowed terminology and jargon from other disci-
48 plines such as engineering design, operational research, decision
Gregory, S., 1966,
The Design Method, theory, information theory, and the social sciences;
Butterworths,
London. • An often extreme tendency towards theorizing and abstraction,
49 alienated from an appropriate practical context.
Jones, J., 1970,
Design Methods:
Seeds of Human With these diverse approaches, the noun “design” becomes overused,
Future, John Wiley leading even more into indistinctness and fuzziness. “Design” is used at the
& Sons, New York.
same time to point to a drawing, a concept, a plan, and a visual representa-
50
Lawson, B., 1980,
tion, as well as to the end product of such a drawing, concept, or plan. It
How Designers Think, is used to refer to visual form and at the same time to what that form rep-
The Architectural
Press Ltd., London.
resents, or even to the intentions and motivation of the designer. A notion
51
that tries to cover everything covers nothing: it empties itself and becomes
Akin, O., 2006, meaningless.
A Cartesian Approach
to Design Rationality,
This first diagnosis, however, ignores the fact that a variety of inter-
Meta University connected interpretations imply a variety of possible functions of that
Press, Ankara.
notion, whereby the context wherein it is used is essential to understanding
52 it. According to Jones (1970) 55, this variety can give an indication of how to
Buchanan, R., and
Margolin, V. (Eds.), cope with the seemingly growing inability of designers to deal with more
1995, Discovering and more complex environments:
Design: Explorations
in Design Studies, The
University of Chicago
In getting away from drawing and from the conventional ways of
Press, Chicago. thinking about design, the theorists may together have produced
the very thing that is needed to overcome the weakness of tradi-
tional designing, that ‘thing’ being variety itself, a greater variety
than that which exists in the experience and expertise of any one
designer, of any one design profession or, for that matter, of any
one design theorist.
52
What Jones does not acknowledge is the fact that the defined con-
ceptual frameworks — Alexander is an example — are used not only in a 53
Cross, N., 2001,
descriptive or explanatory way but also in an argumentative way to argue in Engineering Design
their own favor. This dangerous ambiguity further weakens the usefulness Methods: Strategies
for Product Design,
of the developed theory. John Wiley & Sons,
These examples show the very individualistic, central, and autarchic New York.
character of the design activity, rooted in the above-mentioned dichotomy Cross, N., 2006,
between subject and object. It is clear that the designer has put himself in Designerly Ways of
Knowing, Springer-
a situation defined by a strongly interrelated connection: design activity Verlag Ltd., London.
and theory formulation. From that central and autonomous position, the 54
designer not only designs in an act of “creative force”, but is also at the same Mitchel, C., 1993,
Redefining Designing:
time de facto setting his own criteria for the ultimate design. It is clear that from Form to Experi-
this position is no longer tenable. ence, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Mitchel, C., 1996,
Jean Baudrillard in Le Système des Objets (1968) 56 has pointed out that we New Thinking in
need a renewed insight into the meaning of form: form as a representation Design: Conversa-
tions on Theory
of culture, a medium by which man communicates with his environment. and Practice, Van
Form is a direct criticism of a too narrowly understood functionalism and Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
transcends the Bauhaus philosophy: it is more than just packaging but has
an equally symbolic value, rooted in cultural values. Form does not automat- 55
Ibid.
ically follow function, but rather emerges out of the interaction between the
56
end product of the design, the environment, and the user. It is the last one Baudrillard, J., 1968,
who, by using the designed product, gives a functional meaning to the form. Le Système des Objets,
Gallimard, Paris.
In Baudrillard’s view, designing is an activity of giving things meaning
instead of form.
As a consequence, the design process should be seen as an open-
ended communication system between designer and environment. The
interpretation of our socio-cultural environment, both on the pragmatic and
the semantic level, is essential to the establishment of new design codes.
These codes should be “depersonalized” and “open,” with a high semantic
capacity; they should enable us to see the particular structural approaches
(designs) as possibilities rather than as a priori given facts. The designer
should use one hand to refer to a world outside himself, and the other to
question that world and steer it in new directions. This puts a great respon-
sibility on the designer’s shoulders: the interpretation of culture itself is
at stake, but also the understanding of his own mind and its contextual
relationships. The individual and cultural value-standards used must be
made explicit and transparent.
What emerges is an important triangular relationship that underlies
the design process: the relationships between designer, designed product,
and the design context. A closer investigation of that relationship may give
53
Design Sciences
us more insight into how to build a coherent design theoretical framework

in which a knowledge base can be developed and supported.
1 3.3
Aspects of a Contextual Design

Model
Joseph Esherick once said, in “Problems of the Design of a Design System”
57 (1963) 57: “If science is engaged in knowledge, design is engaged in action”.
Esherick, J., 1963,
“Problems of the This action aims to introduce purposeful change into the environment, but
Design of a Design by doing so confronts itself with a changed environment. The insertion of
System” in Conference
on Design Methods, change into the environment by the designer, the consequently changed
(Eds. Jones and design context, and the interplay between these two actions are fundamental
Thornley), Pergamon
Press, London. for a dynamic open process. They highlight the importance of the triangu-
58 lar relationships between designer, product and context, and the cybernetic
Foqué, R.K.V., 1975, character of it.
Ontwerpsystemen, Het
Spectrum, Utrecht, In an earlier reflection on the design activity, in Ontwerpsystemen,
The Netherlands, and (1975) 58, I argued that designing develops along three main moments
Antwerp.
(Fig. 1.3.1):
1 A Structuring Moment
2 A Creative Moment
3 A Communicative Moment
These moments do not exist in isolation, nor do they happen sequentially

as the design process proceeds. They should not be seen as phases of that
process, but rather its driving forces. In light of the above analysis, it seems
important to have a closer look at these three elements of the design process.
3.3.1
Design as a Structuring Activity
The notion of structure has a wide variety of contextually determined
meanings. We speak about the structure of the human body, the structure
of a musical composition, molecular structure, political or societal structure,
and family structure, but we may also use it to refer to a built object, a
sculpture, an abstract artwork, etc. What they have in common is that there
is always a certain degree of ordering involved. To identify something as
54
1.3.1
Design Activity Characterized by Three Main Moments
Structuring
Moment
Communicative Creative
Moment Moment
1.3.2
Phases In Cultural Development
Middle Ages Renaissance 19th & 20th Centuries
Mythical Phase Ontological Phase Functional Phase
Structure a priori given Structure to be analysed Structure as a system

of relationships
Phenomena must fit Phenomena are individual Phenomena are interacting

building blocks
Mythical : Unconsiously Atomistic : Explicitly Systemic: Explicity

synthesizing character analyzing character synergetic character
Communal Individual Contextual

Design Sciences
a structure implies that we have recognized one or more forms of order:

59 a pattern, a clear-cut and permanent relationship between the elements of a
Van Peursen, C.A.,
1968, Informatie, greater whole.
een interdiscipli- The way the human being experiences the outside world, reflects on
naire studie, Het
Spectrum, Utrecht, it, and acts in it is an essentially structuring activity. It is not only a way of
The Netherlands. understanding, knowing, and recognizing the “existing” structure in that
outside world, but is at the same time an organizing principle regarding that
world in the epistemological sense. A structuring moment is that moment
where these two aspects are unified in a new synthesis. Structure, as such, is
recognized as an existing fact and reordered as a future possibility.
Structure can be manifested in different ways. It may appear as a spontan-

eous whole before we have identified the elements: children’s drawings are
a good example. On the other hand, we can compose a structure in a very
conscious way out of individual elements. To achieve that, we use meta-
structures such as language, mathematics, and musical theory.
C.A. Van Peursen’s analysis of the cultural development of mankind
in Informatie, een interdisciplinaire studie (1968) 59 put this process in a more
universal perspective. He distinguished three primary phases (Fig. 1.3.2):
1 The Mythical Phase, where the human being is surrounded by
supernatural powers; he is immersed in a world, which he is
unable to understand, so cannot master.
2 The Ontological Phase, where man is no longer a part of that
mythical world but has put distance between it and himself in an
attempt to understand and master it.
3 The Functional Phase, where man is engaged and participating
in that world, developing relationships with it, and reflection on
these relationships becomes an essential tool for functioning as
a human being.
By applying these three phases to scientific evolution, three kinds of struc-

turing moments may be defined.
From antiquity through the Middle Ages, we see that scientific discoveries,
new observations, and insights were considered elements to be put into an
overall total, static and unchanging framework. It was an a priori structure
of mythical-religious-philosophical proportions, in which all empirical
phenomena had to fit or be made to fit, and where the individual importance
of a single phenomenon was irrelevant. Within such a world view, the struc-
turing moment was only present in an implicit way, and could be described
as an unconscious synthesizing occurrence.
56
This view was completely overthrown during the Renaissance, when Galileo
Galilei and, later, Isaac Newton laid the foundations of modern science. 60
Koestler, A., 1959,
“Newtonian” thinking implies a world where everything can be divided into The Sleepwalkers,
parts, elements, and particles. The goal of every scientist was the search for Hutchinson, London.
the elementary building blocks of the universe. The world of Newton is a 61
Copernicus, N.,
world of linear processes, where everything can be described in an unam- De Revolutionibus
biguous way — logical, coherent, and systematic. It is a world of cause and Orbium Coelestium.
First printed in
effect. 1543, Nuremberg,
Arthur Koestler, in The Sleepwalkers (1959) 60, rightly pointed out that Germany. English
edition: 1976, On
the real reason for Galileo’s collision with Rome had to be found within this the Revolutions of
context. The astronomical discoveries by Galileo were by no means new at the Heavenly Spheres,
Barnes and Noble,
that time. Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler had made the same New York.
discoveries of how our solar system really worked: that the earth travels
62
around the sun, not the other way around; that the earth is not the centre Kepler, J., Mysterium
of the universe. The difference was that in their writings they had success- Cosmographicum.
First printed in 1596,
fully fit the heliocentric theory into the prevailing biblical framework, the a Tübingen, Germany.
priori structured world view, which was not to be questioned. Copernicus English edition: 1981,
Mysterium Cosmo-
did this in his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (1543) 61 and Kepler in graphicum,Abaris
Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596), in which he claimed to have experienced Books, New York.
an epiphany concerning the mysteries of the universe, and also in his Kepler, J., Astronomia
Nova. First printed
breakthrough works Astronomia Nova and Harmonice Mundi (1609, 1619) 62, in 1609, Prague,
where he stated that “the geometrical things have provided the creator with English edition: 1992,
New Astronomy,
the model for decorating the whole world.” Cambridge University
Copernicus and Kepler were adhering to the mythical world view of Press, New York.
the time. Kepler, J., Harmonice

Mundi. First printed
Not Galileo. He used mathematical models and quantitative experi- in 1619, Linz, Austria.
ments to prove his hypotheses, questioning his own beliefs and changing English edition: 1997,
The Harmony of the
his views in the light of his observations: “The language of God is mathe- World, The American
matics.” He could not accept a blind allegiance to the authority of the Philosophical Society,
Philadelphia, PA.
Church. It was exactly this critical modern thinking, unheard of in those
times, that was at issue during his trial.
This new way of thinking illustrates how the structuring moment
shifted toward a process that is essentially explicitly analytical. It is a
conscious act whereby structures are defined by the elements that comprise
them. The element is of primary importance; from the elements and their
properties the structure emerges as the result of simple addition.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein,
Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and Erwin Schrödinger, among others,
made new discoveries in physics. These would lead to not only Einstein’s
Theory of Relativity, but to the emergence of a completely new area of
subatomic physics: quantum mechanics. The importance of the element
57
Design Sciences
within a structure was replaced by the importance of its mutual rela-

63 tionships. A structure was no longer defined by its constituent parts,
Parabirsing, S.,
1974, De Meta- but by the way these parts interact with each other. When an element
bletische Methode, is isolated from the whole, it loses all the properties that made it part
Boom, Meppel,
The Netherlands. of that whole. Contextuality becomes the key to understanding the
64
essence of a physical structure. This vision could also be found in the
Piaget, J., 1968, social sciences, in Gestalt psychology, psychoanalysis, linguistic theory,
Le Structuralisme,
Presses Universi-
and the theory of change known as “Metabletica,” propounded in
taires de France, S. Parabirsing’s De Metabletische Methode (1974) 63.
Paris.
The structuring moment has reached a new level, characterized
65 by what Jean Piaget, in Le Structuralisme (1968) 64, called “le principe de
Barthes, R., 1964,
Essais Critiques, totalité”: the idea that the totality of properties of a structure is different
Gallimard, Paris. from those of the constituent elements: the whole is more than the sum of
66 the parts. The structuring moment can be defined as of an explicit and syn-
Pouillon, J., 1960,
“Présentation: un ergetic nature.
essai de définition” Structuralism goes beyond even that through the concept of transfor-
in Les Temps Mo-
dernes, Vol. 22, Paris. mation, in which the elements of a structure are completely unimportant;
only the network of relations is relevant, and it is exactly that network that
defines the structure. This train of thought leads to the concept of super-
structures, which define the rules used to perform these transformations.
The evolution in the work of Mondriaan is a good example of this, as are
Chomsky’s generative grammar, but also digital design grammars and blob
architecture.
Roland Barthes, in Essais Critiques (1964) 65, called the elements of the trans-
formational processes “analysis and arrangement.” Both are tools through
which the structure of the rules of transformation and that of the trans-
formed object itself become transparent. There is no longer a strict differ-
ence between structuring and being structured, as Piaget puts it, but both
actions are aspects of the same permanent bipolarity.
The relation between transformation and structure from the perspective of

the structuralist implies that, in the design process, the relation between
designer and end product is no longer relevant. Crucial, however, is the
position of the designer himself in the design process, characterized as it is by
continuous transformation. With reference to Jean Pouillon’s “Présentation:
un essai de définition” (1960) 66, it is important to acknowledge that the
notion of structuring is embedded within the syntax of the transformation
processes. It is precisely the syntactic rules that determine the limits within
which the designer can practice his creativity. The syntax not only includes
the totality of rules but also defines the limits of the design “playground.”
58
1.3.3
Design as a Structuring Activity
1 2
Observation of Development
a Design Situation of Structural
Models
if no
3
Definition of
Elements and
Relationships
7
Design Situation
Structured
if yes
if no
4
Verification
of Applicability
if yes
6 5
Dimensioning Recognition
of Complexity of Structure
Structuring
Design Sciences
As a consequence, the designer always operates in the field of tension

67 between freedom and determination.
Wieser, W., 1959,
Organismen, Struk- It is therefore interesting to see how this notion of structuring has a
turen, Maschinen, particular significance in complex design situations. The notion of structur-
Rowohlt, Frankfurt.
ing the environment is a way of introducing order into a “chaotic” environ-
68
ment, enabling us to handle that environment. It is a way of reducing the
Ontwerpsystemen, Het parameters and consequently the complexity of a design problem. The
Spectrum, Utrecht,
The Netherlands, and
underlying process can be described as a spiral (Fig. 1.3.3). At first the
Antwerp. design situation is observed as something unordered, complex, and impen-
etrable. Then the designer develops structurally analogous models, defines
the elements and the relationships between them, and verifies the applica-
bility of the model to the original situation. If that works, he has recognized
structure and, by doing so, has dimensioned complexity into a new “struc-
tured” design situation. This process involves both analytical and creative
thinking, as I shall discuss in the following paragraph. At the same time,
it raises a methodological question about the use of models in the design
process. This important aspect will be discussed in a separate chapter.
In conclusion, we can describe the design activity as a structuring interven-

tion in the environment, but at the same time it also sets the guidelines that
govern the intervention. It is within that polarity that the design process
appears and unfolds. We may use the now-common systems theory defi-
nition of a structure put forward originally by Wieser (1959) 67 in Organismen,
Strukturen, Maschinen: “a relational matrix of elements or elementary
processes, which form a purposeful whole, following certain laws or rules.
A system is defined as the entity wherein such a structure manifests itself”.
If we agree that designing is a structuring activity in the above sense, we can
speak about “Design Systems” as the whole, wherein the design process is
manifested (1975) 68.
3.3.2
Design as a Creative Activity
It is generally accepted that designers are “creative persons”, and that design
belongs to the “creative disciplines.” But what does that really mean? What
are the underlying mechanisms of creative thinking?
In my investigation of the method of artistic inquiry in Chapter 2,
I tried to analyze the underlying mechanisms of the creative process. I have
defined the creative moment as the moment where the walls separating
intuitive and rational thinking fall to provide for new insight. This is most
crucial to the design activity. If design is an activity that aims at a structuring
60
intervention in the human environment, leading towards new insight into

that environment and the addition to it of new elements, it cannot exist 69
Rogers, C., 1961,
without an inherent creative moment. Design uses the methodologies of On Becoming
both science and art. Both methodologies, as we have seen, are based on a Person, MIT
Press, Cambridge,
the interplay between the rational and the intuitive, between the conscious Massachusetts.
and the unconscious. Thinking and decision-making are happening on all 70
these levels. So creativity is not only related to the degree of originality of Osborn, A., 1957,
Applied Imagination,
a designed product, as is traditionally believed, but equally related to the Charles Scribner,
effectiveness of its technical and social functioning. This is an important New York.
conclusion, as it introduces standards and values into the creative process — 71
and consequently into every design activity. Gordon W., 1961,
Synectics: the Devel-
The essence of a creative act is the creation of novelty, and for opment of Creative
something totally new there exists no criteria for assessment, as there are Capacity, Harper &
Row, New York.
no points of reference. Many examples in the history of art and science
show that the more original a work of art or invention, the more likely it is
that it will be considered incomprehensible — even experienced as threat-
ening and, in some cases, even as evil. This paradox underlying creative
thinking leads to the distinction made by Carl Rogers in his extensive
studies on creative behavior based on observational evidence from clinical
psychotherapy, between “good” and “bad” creativity with regard to its social
context (1961) 69. He introduced the concept of constructive creativity: “To the
degree that the individual is open to all aspects of his experience, and
has available to his awareness all the varied sensing and perceiving which
are going on within his organism, then the novel products of his interac-
tion with his environment will tend to be constructive both for himself and
others”. Constructive creativity per se implies the presence of an individual
value system and seems to be based on four important requirements:
1 Openness and susceptibility to personal experiences: The crea-
tive person should distinguish himself by extension-oriented
behavior;
2 Capacity for self-assessment: The value of a product should be
established by the creator rather than by external critics;
3 A certain immunity to the external critic: The creative person
should not fall into the trap of self-defense;
4 Capacity to “play” with elements, ideas, and concepts.
Based on these requirement are many “creativity-stimulating techniques”

— brainstorming, developed by Alex Osborn (1957) 70, and “Synectics,”
developed by William Gordon (1961) 71, being the best known. These
techniques aim to promote the transfer from one field of knowledge to
another and to look at common principles, but acknowledge the differences.
61
Design Sciences
By doing so, they are essentially interdisciplinary in nature, obeying the laws
72 of heuristics.
Jones, J., 1970,
Design Methods: Often used at the beginning of a design process, these methods are
Seeds of Human intended to stimulate the production of outputs that seem reasonable to
Future, John Wiley
& Sons, New York. the designer, but for which he can give no explanation; the human brain has
the capacity to assign value, recognize forms, associate ideas, and generate
unpredictable relationships without the need for a rational justification.
Jones, in Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future (1970) 72, explained it as
follows: “It is therefore rational to believe that skilled actions are uncon-
sciously controlled and irrational to expect designing to be wholly capable
of a rational explanation.” It is clear that experience, training, skills, and
instinct are important factors in the design process. The designer can thus
be seen as a “black-box”: he receives inputs and produces outputs but the
process by which this is happening is hidden and cannot be revealed.
A closer look at the techniques of brainstorming and “Synectics”
reveals some general characteristics of the creative moment in design. Each
is based on the idea that a collective of minds acting in concert produces
synergetic output and avoids individual stereotype thinking. The partici-
pants are encouraged to build on the ideas of others rather than to pursue
their own lines of thought, using a mix of different strategies:
• To generate as many ideas as possible regarding a certain design
problem, however wild or absurd they may seem;
• To make the familiar unfamiliar and the unfamiliar familiar;
• To abstain from judgment of the other participants and their
suggestions;
• To stimulate the use of analogies and metaphors;
• To make unusual and unlikely connections between seemingly
unrelated facts, events, thoughts, and processes;
• To acknowledge the importance of emotional factors vis–à-vis
rational ones;
• To believe that everything is possible and not to feel inhibited by
the idea that something is scientifically “impossible”;
• To remove mental blocks, by using transformational rules, as
suggested by Osborn, such as: Is other use possible? Is it adapt-
able? Is it changeable? Can it be enlarged? Can it be reduced?
Can it be substituted? Can it be rearranged? Is it reversible? Is it
combinable?
• To use fantasy and fiction.
62
Since the emphasis is on the quantity of ideas rather than on their quality,
Jones concludes with regard to brainstorming, that “the immediately
valuable output is not the ideas themselves, but the categories by which they
are placed by classification”. This remark, put in a broader context, suggests
that intuitively obtained data can be logically analyzed in order to generate
added value to the design solution under study. It refers to the concept of
mind-networks as explained above.
We can conclude that the creative moment is an essential component of the

design activity, underlying the moment of structuring. Three main aspects
characterize it:
1 The designer’s need for self-expression, sustained by belief in
his own ideas and concepts. They give the designer the internal
power to overcome mental blocks and seemingly unproductive
periods throughout the design process;
2 The importance of novelty in relation to the design output.
Novelty asks to be socially and culturally recognized in relation to
the value system and the context in which it is embedded;
3 The permanent attempt to synthesize divergent ideas and
concepts.
The sine qua non of the creative moment is found in its two polarities: the
permanent interaction between rational and intuitive thinking and between
internal reflection and external susceptibility.
On the methodological level, we are presented with complementari-
ties relating the creative moment and the structuring moment, as well as a
congruency between design as a structuring activity and as a creative activity.
3.3.3
Design as a Communication Activity
The original meaning of the word communication, from the Latin com-
municare, goes back to the notion of bringing something to “the common 73
Bense, M., 1962,
place,” to the community, to make it part of a larger social group. In a Theorie der Texte.
paradoxically stricter and more abstract way, it refers to the transmission Eine Einführung in
neuere Auffassungen
or transfer of messages. Max Bense, in Theorie der Texte. Eine Einführung und Methoden,
in neuere Auffassungen und Methoden (1962) 73, defined communication as Kiepenheuer &
Witsch, Cologne.
the transmission of a specific message from one frame of representation,
the source where the message was created, to another frame of represen-
tation, the one where the message is received. The representation should be
63
1.3.4
The Communication Process, Based on the Shannon-Weaver Model
message message
from sender to receiver
Medium Sender
encoding decoding
channel
Information
Syntactic Noise
noise
Sender Semantic Noise noise Receiver
Pragmatic Noise
Feedback
Information
channel
decoding encoding
Medium Receiver
feedback message feedback message

to sender from receiver
understood as the translation of information by means of symbols and signs

into an abstract scheme. Such a process needs a medium through which 74
Shannon, C., and
information can be conveyed from source to receiver. This leads us to the Weaver, W., 1949,
famous Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication, put forward by Claude The Mathematical
Theory of Communi-
Shannon and Warren Weaver in their foundational work on communication cation, The University
theory, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949) 74. Although this of Illinois Press,
Urbana, Illinois.
model was developed for pure technical reasons, it can be useful for under-
75
standing communication in a design environment (Fig. 1.3.4). Beer, S., 1994,
Decision and Control,
John Wiley & Sons
The Shannon-Weaver model is based on the fact that information is Ltd, Chichester,
immaterial and needs a vehicle to become a message that can be sent and England.
received. Such a vehicle is called a code. Languages are codes, but so are
drawings, mathematical formulas, movements, etc. To transmit the message
from source to receiver, a channel is needed. The combination of code and
channel is called the medium. The medium offers a way to turn infor-
mation into messages and messages into transportable signals, thereby
making the process of information exchange possible. There is no message
without a medium. External influences, which may disturb the transfer
system, are called noise.
This purely technical approach to communication needs a socio-
cultural embedding to be useful in a design context. If we really want to
speak about communication within a socio-cultural context, the importance
of feedback to the sender is important: a message that not only acknow-
ledges that the message has arrived but indicates that it has been understood
in a meaningful way. It is the conditio sine qua non without which a process
cannot be considered to have a purpose.
In his Decision and Control (1994) 75, Stafford Beer put great emphasis
on this aspect of communication as a condition for responsive behavior and
conscious change. Feedback applies perfectly to the teleological aspect of
design systems.
Real communication involves two conditions to be fulfilled. First, the
message should contain meaning. Second, the receiver should understand
this meaningful message as significant. In other words, real communi-
cation assumes that both the sender and the receiver agree upon a
commonly understood code and channel, and share knowledge of the media
to be used. There is no communication without mutual knowledge of the
media employed.
This conclusion raises questions on three levels:

1 To what extent has the message been transmitted in a technically
accurate way?
65
Design Sciences
2 To what degree does the coded message convey the desired

meaning?
3 How effectively does the received message affect the behavior of
the receiver in the way intended by the sender?
These three questions refer to what in semiotics are called the syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic levels.
On the syntactic level, we are concerned with the technical accuracy
of the transfer. We deal with problems of the vocabulary, grammar, and
syntax of the code used, but equally with problems related to the technical
functioning of the channel and any possible noise, which could distort the
message.
On the semantic level, we are concerned with the “identity” of
the message. What does the sender mean? How aptly is it put? What is
the receiver’s interpretation? How closely does it fit with the intentions
of the sender? This is a complex problem related to a priori knowledge of
the medium used, and has considerable impact on the effectiveness of the
communication process.
On the pragmatic level, we deal with the degree to which a message
serves its purpose. It may involve aspects such as style, rhetoric, emotion,
and psychological techniques ranging from propaganda to brainwashing.
If we want to maximize communication on all three levels, and make
it into a true process of socialization and participation, the medium used
should meet the following three criteria:
1 The vocabulary, grammar, and syntax should be clear, simple and
easy to understand by all parties involved;
2 The medium should have explanatory qualities to permit a closer
and more common understanding of the message. It should
make use of symbolism that has been made clear to and is
understood by all parties.
3 The effectiveness should be measured by the receiver’s reactions
and whether he replies appropriately.
How can we use this communication model to increase our understanding

of the design process and its communication moment?
The natures of both the structuring and the creative aspects of the
design activity call for a permanent communication process. Structure, by
definition, requires communication, and without structure we cannot talk
about the creative emergence of a new whole. Three types of communication
should be distinguished: communication inside the designer’s mind and/
66
or within the design team; communication between designer and design

context; and communication between designer and user/client.
It is important to recognize that on all three levels the communication
moment itself brings about structure in its full bipolarity as explained above.
The coding of information is a structuring activity per se, and the proper struct-
ural characteristics of the medium determine the way the message is or
can be structured. McLuhan’s comment that “the medium is the message”
should be understood in that sense: The message of any medium or tech-
nology is the change of scale, pace, or pattern that it introduces in human
affairs. The medium imprints its own structure on the message and becomes
the message itself. It introduces another dimension to the communi-
cation moment during the design process. It not only describes aspects of
message-processing when designing, but also becomes design itself. The
medium also ensures that the communication moment has this bipolar
characteristic, analogous to that of the structuring and the creative moment.
1 3.4
Biperspectivism and Bipolarity

The analysis above has revealed an important aspect of the design process:
its bipolarity: internal and external.
The structuring moment is characterized by the structuring interven-
tion itself, but at the same time by the structural laws, which govern that
intervention.
The creative moment relies on an active involvement with the
design environment, combined with a critical reflection on the designer’s
own actions. There is a constant interaction between rational and intuitive
thinking.
The communication moment is essentially determined by the reci-
procity between message and medium.
This bipolar aspect requires that the designer constantly switches
between extroverted and introverted behavior in each of the three moments.
It underlines the intertwining of the three moments, and determines at the
same time the open character of the design process (Fig.1.3.5). Design, seen
as a communication process between man and his natural and socio-cultural
environment, is both a context-driven and a context-interventional activity.
The isomorphic principle between the physical and social worlds and the
cognitive mind is another aspect of this bipolarity. Too often, the design
activity is limited to the domain of physical facts and interventions. Although
67
1.3.5
The Bipolarity of the Design Process
Bipolarity
structuring
moment
communicative creative
moment moment
Bi
y
rit
po
la
la
po
rit
Bi
y
external internal
Bipolarity
active passive
extrovert introvert
context intervention context driven
facts values
Structuring
Structuring Being Structured
Moment
Structural Intervention Structural Laws
Active Involvement Creative Critical Reflection

Rational Moment Intuitive
Medium-Effect Communicative Message-Meaning

Moment
1.3.6
The Biperspectivism of the Design Process in Time
Design Situation
Observation Context Observation
from Without from Within
t1
External Action observation Internal Action
=
intervention
=
change
t2
observation
External Action = Internal Action
intervention
=
change
t3
observation
intervention
=
change
t4
observation
intervention
=
change
t5
observation
intervention
=
change
time
Design Sciences
implicitly present, the value systems behind this activity are not part of the
76 process. The systems approach towards design, as seen in the 1960’s, along
Laszlo, E., 1972,
Introduction to with the emergence of digital design techniques in the 1970’s has certainly
Systems Philosophy: contributed to this limitation and to the denial of the bipolarity of the design
Toward a New Para-
digm of Contemporary process. No attention is paid to those aspects, which can only be observed
Thought, Gordon & through internal reflection. Ervin Laszlo, in his Introduction to Systems
Breach Science Pub-
lishers, New York. Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought (1972) 76, calls
these aspects “mind-events, including perceptions, sensations, feelings,
volitions, dispositions, thoughts, memories and imaginations, i.e. anything
present in the mind.” They form each individual’s cognitive system, as
distinct from the physical, which includes the socio-culltural environment
that surround him and of which he is part. It seems impossible to make
observations of the cognitive system, as by nature it can only be exper-
ienced; only by meta-cognitive observation of mind-events does understand-
ing of them become possible. Natural systems, too, are subject to internal
and external experience and observation. This “biperspectivism,” as Laszlo
calls it, the fact that both cognitive and natural systems can be “observed”
from two standpoints, an external and an internal one, leads to an important
paradox: observing a situation means that you are also observing yourself
as part of the observational system. Observing is intervention, intervention
means change, change induces new observation (Fig.1.3.6).
Design activity cannot escape this paradox, as it is exactly that chain of

actions along which it operates. The bipolar characteristics of the three
moments answer that paradox. They explain why it is that during the
design process the designer must constantly change perspective, alternat-
ing between external action and internal reflection, defined by the
bipolarity of the moment. Designer and designed product, content and
medium, theory and practice, techniques and methodology permanently
question each other and the design situation as the process proceeds.
The intensity of this process is a measure of the openness of the process
itself. There are no longer given solutions but only possible answers:
design solutions as possibilities within a contextual vision.
If we want to build a body of design knowledge as a prerequisite for
becoming a true discipline, the understanding of this bipolar and biper-
spective vision is essential. Let us explore how these characteristics have
manifested themselves historically.
70
1 3.5
From the Unconscious to the

Rational to the Creative
It is generally accepted that the emergence of technology and the evolution
of man are closely interwoven and inseparable. Technology can be defined
as the conscious act of making tools of a certain and standardized form
based upon scientific inquiry and knowledge. Technology transforms the
physical world, and by its nature implies a design activity. This may assume
a congruency between evolution in scientific thought and design thought. A
closer examination will give us a better insight into how design paradigms
identify the three moments in the design process, and how the relationships
between the three protagonists of the design-built process — the designer,
the client/user, and the manufacturer — have changed.
3.5.1
Design as an Unconscious Process: The Triangle
Locked
When prehistoric man looked for the right stone to cut and shape in order
to increase the power of his hand, he was performing in both a technical
and a designerly way. He was engaged in a creative process, relating form
to function within a structuring moment. He was communicating with
the natural world and reflecting on it at the same time. The designing
and making of that stone weapon were joined in a simultaneous act, where
intuitive and rational thinking were integrated, leading to a coherent
solution.
At first sight, the “design process” in a craft society seems extremely
simple and almost redundant. However, the results of that process are often
extremely sophisticated and complex, suggesting functional and aesthetic
perfection. They combine technical perfection with almost natural beauty.
How is it possible that often-illiterate craftsmen can control an evolu-
tionary process without an explicit notion of the why and the how and
without any explicitly generated technical information?
One answer may be that in such societies the maker and the user
are one and the same — or at least have a close relationship to each other.
Through tradition they “feel,” so to speak, what is necessary to satisfy a
certain need and how to produce an artifact to fulfill that need. But a closer
71
Design Sciences
look at examples of craft culture may reveal some essential features of how
77 design in a craft society has to be characterized.
Alexander, C.,
1964, Notes on the
Synthesis of Form, Even now, igloos are built in a vernacular and craft-like tradition. There is a
Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, traditional form within which variations are made according to individual
Massachusetts. needs and required functions. Drawings of floor plans or sections are not
78 part of the process, and questions about technical problems or calculations
Office de la Ré-
cherche Scienti-
about thermal heat loss are not considered.
fique Outre-Mer,
1952, L’Habitat aux
Cameroun, Paris.
In Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) 77, Christopher Alexander described
a similar situation when he analyzed how the huts of certain African tribes
79
Sturt, G., 1923 (first are built and appear as a kind of best solution within the circumstances,
edition), 1963 (first calling it “the unselfconscious culture.” He referred to the study L’Habitat
paperback edition),
The Wheelwright’s aux Cameroun (1952) 78 by the Office de la Récherche Scientifique Outre-
Shop, Cambridge Mer. This extensive study of the Mousgoum huts in northern Cameroon
University Press,
London, New York. pointed out some very relevant aspects of craft design. These huts have a
80 nearly ideal surface curvature to allow for maximum reflection of the sun
Jones, J., 1970, and maximum thermal comfort inside. The construction itself is a kind of
Design Methods:
Seeds of Human skeletal system, using a number of bamboo beams filled in with clay. The
Future, John Wiley bamboo beams themselves are made to resemble bent ladders, coming
& Sons, New York.
together to one point at the top of the hut, and the horizontal parts are
81
Cross, N., 1975, slightly bowed as well, with an inside inclination toward the middle. At
Design and Tech- first sight, this construction seems far from obvious, and is in fact rather
nology, The Open
University Press, complex to make and to assemble. Closer observation reveals that the form
Milton Keynes, and construction of these curved beams have multiple functions. They not
England.
only provide for the stability of the hut, but during the building process
82
Lawson, B., 1980,
they function as ladders to reach the upper part of the construction. When
How Designers Think, the hut is finished, the bowed form of the horizontal parts of the “ladder-
The Architectural
Press Ltd., London.
beams,” filled with clay according to the bowing, serve as a kind of gutter,
allowing for quick run-off of rainwater from the hut’s surface.
Another well-documented case study is found in George Sturt’s book

The Wheelwright’s Shop (1923) 79. Several authors have commented on this
work, among them Jones (1970) 80, Cross (1975) 81 and Lawson (1980) 82, as
it is considered one of the first contemporary books on design methods and
theory. For the sake of our argument, however, it is worthwhile to have a
closer look at some aspects of Sturt’s investigations. Upon the death of his
father in 1884, Sturt Jr. found himself in charge of a wheelwright’s shop
in the south of England. In his book, he described in detail his struggle to
understand the trade, which he characterized as “a folk industry carried
on in a folk method”. He was fascinated by the manufacturing of the cart-
wheels, especially the technique that he called “dishing”, in reference to the
72
saucerlike shape of the cartwheels. Having seen his father going through a
rather tedious process, he followed suit for many years. Becoming increas- 83
Declercq, N. and
ingly dissatisfied, as he did not understand why the dishing of the wheels Dekeyser, C., 2007,
was so important, he tried to find rational explanations for something that “Acoustic Diffrac-
tion Effects at the
for the wheelwrights seemed obvious. Hellenistic Amphi-
First he suspected that the dish of the wheels was directly related to the theater of Epidaurus”,
in The Journal of the
building process itself, initially giving the wheel a kind of pre-distorted form Acoustical Society of
to anticipate in a harmonious and directional way the distorting forces to be America, nr. 121(4),
New York.
caused by the tightening of the iron tire on the wooden frame and to regular-
ize its contraction. This explanation seemed reasonable, but studying older
examples of wooden cartwheels and looking at pictures of ancient battle-
wagons, which were not iron-cased, he saw that the dish was already there.
Another reason he considered is the advantage that it allowed for a trape-
zium-shaped cart body, achieved by the fact that the dished wheel should be
perpendicular to the road to transfer the load. As at those times the roads
where narrow and legislation restricted the width between the wheels to 68
inches, the trapezium shape allowed for extra load and overhanging goods.
Not satisfied with these findings, Sturt built a prototype wagon with non-
dished wheels. During the test drives something remarkable happened:
the wagon collapsed, as the wheel spokes didn’t hold. Sturt concluded that
the dishing was an answer to the lateral forces caused by the natural gait
of the horses, throwing the cart from side to side with each stride. Cross
pointed out that the dished wheel also needed fore way. To keep the bottom
of the wheel perpendicular to the road surface, the axle could not be exactly
horizontal, but had to slope down towards the wheel. As a result the wheels
had a tendency to “run off” the axle. This effect was countered by pointing
the axle slightly forward as well, resulting in a “fore way” force, which kept
the wheel on the axle when driving.
A recent study at the Georgia Institute of Technology by Nico Declercq

and Cindy Dekeyser (2007) 83 on the acoustic qualities of the theatre of
Epidaurus built by Polykleitos around 300 BC, similarly explains on almost
scientific grounds the real nature of a design process in a craft society. The
theater of Epidaurus is internationally known for its exceptional acoustics,
which permit almost perfect intelligibility of the unamplified spoken word
from the proscenium to all 15,000 spectators, regardless of where they
are seated. This study indicates that the astonishing acoustic properties
are the result of a fortuitous accident: The rows of limestone seats, with a
corrugate surface, filter out low-frequency sounds below 500 Hertz, such as
the murmur of the crowd and other surrounding noise, and amplify/reflect
high-frequency sounds from the stage. The authors point out that ancient
architects were aware of the physicality of sound waves, but believed that
73
Design Sciences
the slope of the theater was the principal way to control the acoustics, as
84 asserted in Vitruvius’s treatise De Architectura (1st century BC) 84. There is
Vitruvius, M.,
around 30 BC, De no evidence whatsoever that they had any understanding that the corruga-
Architectura Libri tion of the seats was the primary source of the excellent acoustics.
Decem, translated
by Morgan, M.,
1941, The Ten Books The story of the cartwheel dishing, along with the studies of the Mousgoum
on Architecture,
Harvard University huts and the theatre of Epidaurus, show that there is apparently no single
Press, Cambridge, reason why man-made things are as they are. Form is not a problem an sich,
Massachusetts.
but is embedded in a long tradition. Form seems to emerge from an uncon-
scious synthesis on three levels between function, production process, and
product use. This synthesis is an answer to maximizing form, function,
manufacturing, and use into one whole. It illustrates the characteristics of
the design process in a craft society:
• It is a slowly evolving process of trial and error. Product deficien-
cies and weaknesses are discovered by experience and subse-
quently improved upon. Product change occurs by changing one
aspect at a time. It means that each new product refers to and
relies on the previous one. This time-consuming and sequen-
tial search for improvement leads remarkably to a well balanced
and a state-of-the-art perfect product. The design of a product
has reached that stage of stability and perfection at the moment
when the visual structure of the elements has adapted to the
invisible but implicitly present structure of the context wherein
it is made and has to function.
• It is manufacturing and using at the same time. The three
main stages are essential, interwoven, and indistinguishable.
Designer, producer, and user are the same person (or at least
belonging to a small and closed social network).
• Form, appearance, and function of the product itself, together
with the “designer’s” memory, are the only source of information
about the product. Each product is a model of itself, a prototype.
The designer-craftsman uses few if any drawings or technical
calculations, which are replaced by experience and histori-
cal examples. “This is the way to do it, because it is the way it
has always been done”. A sudden change or drastic redesign
of the product would cause a fatal loss of information about
that product. An implicit database built for generations would
disappear. As a result changes in a product form are rare and not
encouraged. Only accidents, manufacturing failures, and unex-
pected situations are reasons to look for new solutions.
74
• Human-centered usability, along with the natural properties of

the materials, determine the design of a product. As a result,
function, effectiveness, and appearance merge into natural form,
innate to the material. This puts extra demands on the designer-
craftsman: he has to have substantial knowledge about material
characteristics and the talent to combine them in an economi-
cal way. As a consequence, craft products are characterized by a
kind of “material avarice” and minimal waste.
• The “design-build process” in a craft society is largely dependent
on human muscular strength. There is a close interaction
between physical action and sensory experience, which gives
the process its typical sequential character. Each action has
two goals: to complete the previous and to prepare for the next.
The traditional mason is a good example of this. Experiential
knowledge and skill determine the speed of the process and the
energy put into it.
For a craft society, there is no reason to see the design process as something
separate per se, nor is the difference between form and function — or what
is rationally constructed and intuitively found — considered to be intrinsi-
cally important.
The three moments of the design activity are not distinguishable
and cannot be analyzed as discrete aspects of one process. The integrated
position of the designer-producer-user, embedded in a close socio-cultural
environment, enables an almost ideal interaction between the internal and
external polarity of the design moments as described above.
• The structuring moment in a craft society is of an unconscious,
synthesizing character. Individual elements are not seen as
separate entities but form a totality an sich, based upon what
Sturt calls “the interaction of the parts.” Structure appears as a
whole. The design information is stored in the product itself,
which acts as its own model, and seldom in one or another
symbolic form, such as drawings or formulas. Design as a
structuring activity builds harmoniously on existing factors
and circumstances, rather than a search for active change. The
internal polarity is not questioned, but accepted as a determin-
ing design parameter.
• The creative moment is determined by an extroverted behavior
of the designer-craftsman. He is receptive to his environment
and relies on experience. At the same time, he has great
75
Design Sciences
professional pride, which is necessary as the touchstone for

85 self-evaluation. The so-called ability to play with elements and
Rogers, C., 1961,
On Becoming concepts, an aspect of constructive creativity, according to
a Person, MIT Rogers in On Becoming a Person (1961) 85, is limited to the trial-
Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. and-error process and triggered by external elements. Intuitive
86
action prevails over rational thinking, the latter being limited to
Simon, H., 1971, the application of known techniques and force of habit. Design
“Style in Design”,
in Proceedings 2nd
synthesis is determined by tradition and historical examples.
EDRA Conference.
• When the communication moment happens, it appears simple
and straightforward. All three aspects of the design communi-
cation process — the communication inside the designer’s mind
and/or within the design team, the communication between
designer and design context, the communication between
designer and user/client — are interwoven and happen in a
direct way, without intermediate codes. The designer-craftsman,
being directly involved and participating in his socio-cultural
environment, has a direct relation with the product of his activity.
In conclusion, we can define the design process in a craft society as a

process essentially limited to the development of already existing objects.
The aim is to bring them to further perfection, using the best possible tech-
nologies. This process is embedded in a familiar, largely unchanging and
socially static environment, which precludes the need for rapid design
change. Within this context, the concept of style in design has a specific
meaning. According to Herbert Simon in “Style in Design” (1971) 86, “Style”
has three sources: the direct specifications of the object itself, the way the
object is produced, and the nature of the underlying design process. The
difference between “style” and “imitation-style,” Simon argues, lies in the
fact that “imitation” never reveals any information about the design process
itself. Simon’s approach is remarkable and eye-opening. It invites discussion
about where we can identify “style” or “imitation” or “kitsch,” from the pro-
duction techniques used and the intrinsic form of an object to the mental,
conceptual processes underlying that object. Consequently, in a craft society
“style” is not only a form-determining principle, but defines a totality which
relates form with function, thinking with acting, and object with environ-
ment in a socially acceptable synthesis.
The designer-client/user-manufacturer triangle is locked.
76
1.3.7
From the Unconcious Design Process to the Rational
Craft Society
The Triangle Locked
Design as an Unconscious Process
designer
Design
Process
manu-
user facturer
Industrial Society
The Triangle Broken
Design as a Rational Process
designer
Design
Process
manu-
user
facturer
Design Sciences
3.5.2
Design as a Rational Process: The Triangle
Broken
In the preceding chapter, I referred to Marshall McLuhan, who argued in his
87 famous Understanding Media (1967) 87 that Gutenberg’s introduction of the
McLuhan, M., 1967,
printing press was at the origin the Industrial Revolution and supported the
Sphere Books Ltd., emerging mechanistic world view of cause and effect. As industrialization
London; also 1994,
replaced craft society, standardization and mass production took over from
The Extensions of individual and tailor-made production. As a result, a major shift in the rela-
Man, MIT Press,
Cambridge,
tionship between designer, producer, and user occurred (Fig.1.3.7). Where in
Massachusetts. craft society there was a tight bond among them, the relationships between
these three major players become anonymous, often almost non-existent.
The relation with the user shifts from a personal to a purely consumer level.
3.5.2.1 The Industrialization of the Design Process: “Technical”

Drawing as a Design Tool
As a side effect of industrialization, drawing, as a design tool and com-

munication medium, started to lose its “artistic” character and became
“technical.” Sketching and freehand drawing became subordinated to the
more rigorous, standardized drawing technique, based on the mathematical
principles of geometry. The final design had to be accurately rendered in a
commonly understandable language. As a result, we see that the rise of the
industrial society gave birth to a new profession: the draftsman.
The technical drawing became the buffer between concept and
execution. The trial and error process took place on the drawing board, and
drawing became the medium for experiment and change. The technique of
technical drawing reflected the vision of the industrial period: division and
assemblage. Complex problems could be split into smaller elements, studied
one by one, and reassembled on the drawing table. During that process no
definite options or decisions had to be made. Different alternatives could be
studied, without the necessity of having to make expensive investments, and
the risk for error was minimized.
This method of design by drawing was not only vital for the Industrial
Revolution, but the Industrial Revolution needed in turn a proper design
language. The language of technical drawing, with its typical vocabulary and
grammar, brought the machine dimension back to an understandable and
human scale, again tangible and able to be discussed. The parallel develop-
ment of blueprint technology made drawings easily reproducible, allowing
for quick circulation among all members involved in the design-production
process. Specialized knowledge, crucial for an industrial society, could easily
78
be brought to the table, using the drawing technique as the common code
and the drawing itself as a model for experimentation. The designer-drafts- 88
Jones, J., 1970,
man was born. Through the nature of technical drawing, rational and scien- Design Methods:
tific thinking started to take over the design game. Seeds of Human
Future, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
In his Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future (1970) 88, John Chris Jones
commented extensively on the design-by-drawing process. He emphasized
the parallel between design and the production process in an industrial-
ized society. Invoking the assembly line, where products are manufactured
through the addition of elements one by one in a sequential process, he
pointed out that designing has gone through the same evolution. The design
problem is split into functional parts, and partial solutions are conceived
and then reassembled. Design teams can work together, as they are part
of a “design assembly-line.” Specialist knowledge and the division of labor
become ways to increase the efficiency of design teams. However, there will
always be a need for a so-called “chief designer,” the one, according to Jones,
who keeps track of the total solution picture and integrates the parts in a
creative way.
The above analysis underlines the enduringly individual nature of
design as a concept-finding activity. Drawings are to be seen as a means
to exteriorize abstract ideas, and drawing seen as an activity allowing the
designer to communicate with these ideas. They widen the perceptual span
of the designer, enabling a switch from macro to micro levels, keeping the
totality of the concept in mind while dealing with detailed solutions. At the
same time, partial design changes are easily made at the drawing table. All
too often, clients, manufacturers, and contractors try to do this, usually for
economic reasons. At first glance such changes seem harmless, but most
of the time they result in a mutilated product on both the functional and
aesthetic levels. It is known that experienced designers and architects are
especially reluctant to change parts of their design precisely for that reason,
as they understand the holistic character of a design solution.
This illustrates the weakness of the use of technical drawing during
the design process, as it inherently sees design solutions from an atomic,
Newtonian perspective: the whole is nothing more than the sum of the
parts, which can be replaced without changing the character of the whole.
Technical drawing alienates designers from design. Easy reproducibility
increases that effect and discourages critical thinking.
What are the similarities and differences between the “designer-craftsman”

and the “designer-draftsman”? For each, the design activity still seems to
have a sequential character: a linear process from one phase to the other.
The trial and error process, so typical for a craft situation is still present,
79
Design Sciences
but has been moved to the drafting table. Many authors on design theory
have commented on this analogy without acknowledging the fact that this
step-by-step procedure used as a problem-solving technique has an inherent
capacity for transformation. It changes the causalities of the design concept
and its context from interactive to linear. The reality of the design situation
is no longer derived from the real environment, but instead made by the
designer. This unconscious transformation of the real into a man-made
model by the designer limits his conceptual design possibilities. The bipo-
larity of the communication model allows for the drawing technique itself
to steer the designed output. The resulting situation emphasizes McLuhan’s
thesis that “the message of any medium or technology is the change of scale
or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.” Some examples of this
transformative aspect of designing by drawing may illustrate this relation
between medium and message.
• One important aspect of technical drawing is “scaling”. The
use of a scale factor allows the designer to maintain a clear and
organized view of complex and extensive situations, bringing
them back to the dimensions of the drafting table. In architec-
ture and town planning, for instance, large areas and extensive
building programs are made legible and understandable by
using the appropriate scale. Design decisions are made on the
basis of a “scaled reality,” under the implicit assumption that a
simple multiplication will make the solution work in the real
world.
• Design by drawing relies on the principles of Euclidean
geometry. Thus, we implicitly introduce important elements of
that geometry — such as the laws of symmetry, geometrical
forms, and the golden section — into the design decision-making
process. Even the use of traditional drafting instruments
enforces these principles: the preferences for straight lines (the
rule), the 90° angle (the triangle and the sliding rule), and the
circle (the compass). Many architectural designs in the 1960’s
and 1970’s are characterized by the 30-60-90-degree angle.
Undoubtedly, there is a relation between the introduction in
the architectural office of the standardized drawing device with
fixed positions per turn of 30°. It is not only the manufacturing
process that has increased the gap between natural and artificial
form, but equally so the design process itself. In architectural
design, for instance, we see how surfaces are mathematically
optimized and rectangular shapes become prominent.
80
• Anton Ehrenzweig, in The Hidden Order of Art (1970) 89, pointed

out another aspect of design by drawing: what he called “the 89
Ehrenzweig, A., 1970,
aesthetical trap.” Because the technique of drawing is based on The Hidden Order of
intrinsically precise and stand-alone forms, designers tend to Art, Paladin, London.
obey the Gestalt psychological law of closure. This is the tendency 90
Moles, A., 1969,
to simplify images and concepts in a way that allows them to L’Affiche dans la
keep their own graphical identity. Images and concepts refer société urbaine,
Dunod, Paris.
to themselves instead of being a representation of some other
reality. Abraham Moles, author of L’Affiche dans la société urbaine
(1969) 90, did substantial research about this phenomenon with
respect to publicity and the effect of posters as mass media. He
pointed out that the public effect of the message is proportionate
to the degree of “graphical coherence” of the image. The more
it is a “Gestalt,” the greater the impact. Close observation of
architects sketching or drawing floor plans, sections, or façades
leads to similar conclusions. They draw and redraw, modify and
change their designs to look good, first as a drawing. This in
fact is a strange phenomenon, as the architect uses drawing as a
means to conceptualize, understand, and communicate a three-
dimensional object, but is seduced by the beauty of the drawing
itself. It explains why buildings can be schizophrenic: having a
harmonious and aesthetically breathtaking appearance from the
outside, which has no fit whatsoever with the interior: perfectly
positioned windows in a façade that are in the wrong place when
looking from the inside out, rooms without views, balustrades at
the functionally wrong height, etc. The laws of the medium take
over the content.
This reminds me of an incident during a review session of student work

at the Technical University Delft some years ago. One of the reviewers, a
respected Dutch architect, looked at the floor plan of a student’s design for a
small theatre building and commented: “I don’t think that your design will
work, you know; it is really bad and not well conceived; as an example, when
you enter the building you cannot even find the restrooms.” Apart from
making a rather negative, even nasty comment, what did the reviewer really
mean? Was he arguing that if the building were to be built according to the
student’s drawings and you entered it, you would not be able to find the
restrooms, because they were hidden, in an unconventional place, or simply
not built? Or was he pointing to the fact that the drawing itself provided no
clues as to where the restrooms were, because he could not read the drawing
in detail, because the distance between him and the drawing was too large,
because the drawing was clumsily made or the student forgot to assign
81
Design Sciences
names to the spaces, or because they were simply not drawn? From an epis-
temological viewpoint, however, the fact that the drawing provided insuf-
ficient information is the most valid explanation. This incident questions
the ability of models to accurately represent the facts, situations, or
circumstances they purport to represent: the architectural drawing being
an example.
There are important methodological consequences of using models
as the main instrument of design inquiry, an aspect I shall discuss in a
separate paragraph.
3.5.2.2 The Exteriorization of the Design Process
Since the beginning of the 20th century, and particularly after the Second
91 World War, scientific breakthroughs have grown exponentially, increasing
Hall, A., 1962,
A Methodology for the complexity of the human environment. In 1962, Arthur Hall formu-
Systems Engineering, lated the concept of “expanding environments” in A Methodology for Systems
Van Nostrand,
New York. Engineering 91, pointing out that more and more elements of the natural
92
and man-made systems are interacting, causing fundamental changes in
Foqué, R.K.V., 1975, each other’s behavior. Information and communication technologies have
Ontwerpsystemen, Het
Spectrum, Utrecht,
combined to produce a pace of change that was previously unimaginable.
The Netherlands, and This evolution forces man to interact increasingly with his environment.
Antwerp.
He has no escape, so to speak, but must engage in a permanent dialogue
with his surrounding world. The result is an increasing “density” of man’s
environment, on both the technical and the socio-cultural level. The denser
this environment becomes, the more restrictions it imposes on privacy
and individual freedom. Examples of this phenomenon in everyday life are
countless, ranging from global ecological problems, metropolitan urbani-
zation, and security measures in airports to mobile phones, unsolicited
mail, internet spam, and television commercials. Change and crisis have
become the constant state of society.
Hence the designer confronts a nearly impossible task, making every
design activity inadequate from the beginning. It is a tragic paradox that, in
spite of their best intentions to improve the human environment, architects
and planners seem to be unable to significantly remedy its further deterior-
ation. In an earlier book on design systems (1975) 92, I introduced the notion
of “design transfer,” as analogous to the concept of technology transfer, to
indicate how a new design affects its environment and how it spreads out in
time (Fig.1.3.8).
Two stages in this process can be distinguished: the design and
development stage and the in-use stage. The more the effect expands, the
more difficult it becomes to control and to predict the change caused by
the product. As mentioned earlier, the growing density of human space
82
1.3.8
Design Transfer Process over Time
Specific Design Problem
development
Scientific and Technological Means phase
Design Concept
Prototype
transfer time
Application within Design Problem Context
implementation
Effect on the Immediate Environment phase
Effect on Socio-Economic Systems
Effect on Society as a Whole
Effect on World View
Knowledge about Design Impact

1.3.9
The Exploding Design Situation/Context
Craft Society Post-Industrial Society

Steady Design Transfer Exploding Design Transfer
Society as a Whole Society as a Whole
Socio-Economic System Socio-Economic System
Immediate Environment Immediate Environment
design design
situation situation
1.3.10
Changing Trends in Transfer Time and Levels of Interaction

long
high
trend of growing
unpredictability
Post-
Craft transfer time Industrial
Society
Society
short
level of interaction
low
1800 1900 2000

is speeding up this process, making the design transfer time shorter and
shorter. The implosion of the design transfer time causes an explosion of 93
Alexander, C.,
the design situation (Fig.1.3.9). 1964, Notes on the
As we have seen, the design situation in a craft society shows exactly Synthesis of Form,
Harvard University
the opposite characteristics (Fig.1.3.10): In a craft society, transfer time is Press, Cambridge,
long; the level of interaction or density is low. Therefore the change a design Massachusetts.
may introduce in the short term is, in fact, irrelevant in a craft society. 94
Jones, J., and
Both the recent condensation of individual and social space and the accel- Thornley, D., 1963,
eration of the design transfer time cause a situation of design impotence. Conference on Design
Methods, Pergamon
This situation calls for a completely new approach to the design activity and Press, London.
the methods used, and it necessitates the building of a design knowledge
95
base. How otherwise can we cope with buildings that are still under con- Jones, J., 1970,
struction but have already become obsolete with regard to occupancy? How Design Methods:
Seeds of Human
can we apply concepts of sustainability in permanently changing environ- Future, John Wiley
ments? How can we apply a user-friendly approach to design, as the user is & Sons, New York.
anonymous and inconstant? What is the position of the designer in a world 96

Asimow, M., 1962,
of manipulated values and beliefs? Introduction to Design,
Prentice Hall, New
York.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s, designers, architects and town planners slowly
became aware of these problems. Christopher Alexander (1964) 93 may
have been the best spokesman when he stated the need for changing the
design process from an unconscious into a conscious one and making it
transparent. During those decades, a knowledge domain emerged: system-
atic design and design theory as an attempt to ground the design activity
in more scientific and rational paradigms. I have already made reference to
the 1962 first conference on design methods in London (1963) 94, where the
need for increased transparency and rational understanding of the design
activity became apparent.
Since then, many attempts have been made to arrive at a generally
applicable model of the design process, all of them inspired by the growing
importance of systems theory and thinking related to the rise of the
computer age. These attempts try to systematize and describe in a rational
way the design process, its several phases, and the kind of methods to be
used in every phase, as Jones (1970) 95 tried to do, developing his “Design
Method Matrix” (Fig.1.3.11). It is no mere coincidence that this intense devel-
opment took place in the 1960’s and 1970’s, as this was the period that gave
rise to the introduction of information technology into the design process,
and where the first CAD applications made their entry into the design
office. More than ever, there was a need for this evolution to have a coherent
scientific grounding.
The best-known and oldest model for the design process is that
described by M. Asimow in his Introduction to Design (1962) 96: the
85
1.3.11
Design Matrix by J.C. Jones (1970)
outputs design situation problem structure

explored perceived or transformed
inputs
brief issued • Stating Objectives • Literature Searching

• Literature Searching • Visual Inconsistency Search
• Visual Inconsistency • Interviewing Users
• Interviewing Users • Brainstorming
• Brainstorming • Synectics
design situation • Stating Objectives

explored • Data Reduction
• Interaction Matrix
• Interaction Net
• Classification
• Specification Writing
problem structure • Literature Searching

perceived or • Questionnaires
transformed
• Investigating User Behaviour
• Systemic Testing
• Selecting Measurement Scales
• Data Logging
boundaries located, • Synectics

sub-solutions • Removing Mental Blocks
described and
conflicts identified • AIDA
• System Transformation
• Boundary Shifting
• Functional Innovation
• Alexander’s Method
sub-solutions
combined into
alternative designs
alternative designs
evaluated and final
design selected
boundaries located, sub-solutions combined alternative designs
sub-solutions described into alternative designs evaluated and final
and conflicts identified design selected
• Visual Inconsistency Search • Visual Inconsistency Search • Strategy Switching

• Brainstorming • Brainstorming • Matchett’s FDM
• Morphological Charts • Synectics
• System Transformation
• Functional Innovation
• Alexander’s Method
• Boundary Searching • Brainstorming • Systematic Search

• Systemic Testing • Synectics • Value Analysis
• Brainstorming • System Transformation • Systems Engineering
• Morphological Charts • Boundary Shifting • Man-Machine System
• Selecting Criteria Designing
• Ranking and Weighting • Boundary Searching
• Specification Writing • Page’s Strategy
• CASA
• Brainstorming • AIDA
• Synectics
• Removing Mental Blocks
• AIDA
• Value Analysis
• Questionnaires
• Investigating User Behaviour
• Systemic Testing
• Selecting Measurement Scales
• Data Logging And Reduction
• Checklists
• Selecting Criteria
• Ranking and Weighting
• Specification Writing
• Quirk’s Reliability Index
Design Sciences
analysis-synthesis-evaluation model. The analysis phase implies such actions

97 as: defining a list of requirements; classifying criteria for design; specifying
Archer, B., 1963–64,
“A Systematic Meth- interactions among criteria; establishing lists of necessary design parame-
od for Designers” in ters; and agreement on a definite brief. The synthesis phase comprises such
Design, April 1963,
Aug. 1963, Nov. 1963, actions as: defining sub-solutions for specific criteria; combining these sub-
Jan. 1964, May 1964, solutions; and elaborating on a total design solution. Evaluation is the phase
Aug. 1964.
where alternative solutions are compared in relation to the set criteria and a
98
RIBA, 1965, Archi-
final solution is selected.
tectural Practice and Leonard Bruce Archer, in “A Systematic Method for Designers”
Management Hand-
book, RIBA Publica-
(1963–1964) 97, elaborated on that model (Fig.1.3.12), which has led to the
tions, London. famous RIBA (1965) (Fig.1.3.13) plan of work map of the design process
99 published in its Architectural Practice and Management Handbook (1965) 98.
Maver, T., 1970 “App- Tom Maver further developed this RIBA map (Fig. 1.3.14) in his “Appraisal
raisal in the Building
Design Process” in in the Building Design Process” (1970) 99, basing his work on the assum-
Emerging Methods ption that the design process is a decision making process that must be run
in Environmental
Design and Planning through several sequences of increasing detail.
(Ed. Moore, G.), MIT Jones, in turn, transformed the foregoing into a model that refers
Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. to the kind of thinking involved in the several design phases — and his
100 model has a certain analogy to the phases of the creative process: divergent
Cross, N., 2001, thinking, pattern recognition, and convergent thinking. More recently
Engineering Design
Methods: Strategies Nigel Cross, in Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design
for Product Design, (2001) 100, (Fig.1.3.15) has put forward a more sophisticated cyclic model
John Wiley & Sons,
New York. with two levels of description: A first level that indicates the nature of the
101 problems addressed and a second level that provides the methods that can
Foqué, R.K.V., 1988, be used in order to solve any of the problems indicated by the first level. In
“Het Bouwproces”
in Management my contribution to the standard reference book on building management
Non Profit 4, Kluwer, (1988) 101, I proposed a comprehensive designing and building model, as
Antwerp and
Amsterdam. used in most architectural offices (Fig. 1.3.16).
All these models are, in principle, based on a linear sequence of events,

decision-making, and actions. They rely heavily on the engineering design
process and are inspired by the principles of systems theory. It cannot be
denied that they are useful in understanding certain aspects of the design
process. They help the designer reflect on what he is doing and impose a
certain critical distance on the results of the process he is going through.
At the same time, these models create the illusion that design is a kind of
systematic process, which can be described in exact terms, and, if you follow
the different steps, one that will lead automatically to a satisfactory solution.
The assertion that a given input will lead to a well-determined output only
by following a systematic path of actions is not only a dangerous myth, but
also a catalyst for alienation between the designer, the designed product,
its context, and the process underlying the design activity. It gives the
88
1.3.12
Design Process Model According to Archer (1963–1964)
Design Problem
Data Gathering
analytical
phase Define Brief
Analysis
creative
phase Synthesis
Evaluation
execution
phase Communication
Design Solution
1.3.13
The RIBA Plan of Work Map of the Design Process
phase 1 Assimilation
phase 2 General Study
phase 3 Development
phase 4 Communication
phase 1 phase 3
Assimilation Development
• The accumulation and ordering • The development and refinement
of general information and of one or more of the tentative
information specifically related solutions isolated during Phase 2
to the problem at hand
phase 4
phase 2 Communication
General Study
• The communication of one or
• The investigation of the nature more solutions to people inside
of the problem or outside the design team
• The investigation of possible
solutions or means of solutions
1.3.14
The Markus/Maver Map of the Design Process
outline
proposals
Analysis Synthesis Appraisal Decision
scheme
design
detail
design
1.3.15
A General Model of the Creative Strategy by Cross
tension between
conflicting
Problem Goals Solution Criteria
explored to developed to
establish satisfy
resolved by
matching
Problem Frame Solution Concept
used to
identify embodied in
achieved by using
Relevant First
Principles
1.3.16
The Traditional Design and Building Process
Initiative
Information Gathering
Compose Brief and List of Requirements
Legal Codes and Norms
Design Process
Requesting Permits
Building Preparation and Tender
Obtaining Permits
Building Execution
Control
Delivery
Occupancy
impression that design is indeed a process that can be scientifically investi-

gated and understood. It is no doubt co-responsible for the growing gap over
recent decades between academic design teaching and research and the way
design is professionally practiced.
3.5.2.3 The Fragmentation of the Design Process: the Design

Assembly Line (Fig.1.3.17)
There is no doubt a parallel between technological evolution and the way

design activity is conceived, and the architectural profession is a striking 102
Owen, V., 1989,
example of this. “The Legacy of Gothic
In a craft society, the architect was permanently on site. He was the Cathedral Building”
in Journal of Cultural
master builder, directing both the design and the building, which composed Economics, Vol. 13, Nr.
a completely integrated process. The cathedral building in the Middle Ages 1, Springer, Dortrecht,
The Netherlands.
is a perfect example of such a process, in which the architect, the master
masons, and the apprentices worked together in a lodge. That was the place
that served as a workshop and a drawing office at the same time, from
which all the work on the building site was organized. Once their work
was finished at a particular site, they moved to another one. The immense
accomplishments of the Gothic cathedral builders are usually examined
in terms of technical and artistic achievement, but they also introduced
methods for accounting building costs and organizing the labor, as pointed
out by Virginia Lee Owen in “The Legacy of Gothic Cathedral Building”
(1989) 102. Professional knowledge was shared in the lodges and kept secret
from the outer world. Severe penalties were imposed on those members
who revealed that knowledge in public.
The Industrial Revolution definitely put an end to that era. As explained

above, the introduction of technical drawing techniques gave the architect
a common and generally understood medium to transmit his ideas to other
participants involved in the designing- building process. It made the archi-
tectural office the center for design thinking and experiment. The physical
relation with the building site became almost non-existent, along with
the direct personal relationship with the builder. The separation between
designer, client/user, and manufacturer is a matter of fact: the triangular
relation is definitively broken.
The rationalization of the design process has been further accelerated by the
introduction of systems thinking to the design process, as explained above,
the desperate need to cope with the growing density of the human envi-
ronment, and constant change and technological innovation. Emphasis is
entirely given to the structuring and communication moment, embedded in
93
1.3.17
The Fragmentation of the Design Process
Designer
craft User
society
Manufacturer
Designer
industrial
society User
Manufacturer
Designer Designer Designer
post- User User User

industrial
society
Manu- Manu- Manu-
facturer facturer facturer
a linear process, split up into a sequence of clearly distinguishable stages.

The introduction of early CAD systems as a replacement for the drafting 103
Rittel, H., 1972,
board necessitated an even further fragmentation of design by drawing. “Interview” in DMG-
A few examples of this fragmentation are: the use of databases of standard- Occasional Paper, nr. 1,
Berkeley, California.
ized building components and construction details, which are interchange-
104
able; the technique of drawing in layers; the zoom-in, zoom-out command Cuff, D., 1989,
to manipulate the level of detail on which to work, but without any reference “Through the Look-
ing Glass: Seven
to scale. New York Architects
and Their People”
in Architects’ People
The transition from a craft society to an industrial and post-industrial society (Eds. Russell E. and
has given simultaneous rise to an important shift in the socio-economic Cuff D.), Oxford
University Press,
relationships among the several partners involved in the building process. New York.
Architects have themselves to blame for having lost their leading role in
that process. There are several reasons for that, which are interrelated and
mutually enforcing. Architects were not able to keep up with the pace of
innovation taking place in the building industry: the introduction of new
composite materials, the rapid change of the building technology itself, the
development of efficient methods of cost control and planning techniques,
and the increasing complexity of systems integration during construction.
Too late, they became aware of a fundamental shift in societal values: the
ecological awareness and the consequent importance of sustainability.
Architects by their own education, whether grounded in the Bauhaus
or the earlier Beaux-Arts tradition — the first group considering themselves
as engines of social reform, the second still believing in the artistic calling of
the profession — are strongly self-centered and too focused on their creative
mission, the idea that their designs will make the difference and should be
beyond critique. In a 1972 interview Horst Rittel called this mind set the
“asymmetry of ignorance,” 103 the assumption that the architect believes
that he has full professional expertise to handle somebody else’s problem,
therefore casting doubt on his ability not only to provide adequate answers
to the needs of the client, but even to understand the underlying problems
and wishes. The almost pathetic worshipping of the “starchitects” nowadays
is the almost inevitable result. Dana Cuff’s quote from Peter Eisenman,
in her “Through the Looking Glass: Seven New York Architects and Their
People” (1989) 104, is illustrative in that respect: “I do my work for me; there
are no other ‘people’ for the architect. My best work is without purpose. I
invent purpose afterwards. Who cares about function? That is the reduction
of architecture to mindless convenience”.
At the same time, the professional responsibility of the architect
has increased. It has led to changes in the architects’ contracts, attempts to
decrease their liability by putting it on the shoulders of the other partners
in the building process. But by doing so they have changed the balance
95
Design Sciences
of power, creating a vacuum: there is no power without responsibility.

The building industry, technically better equipped, better organized and
economically more powerful, has eagerly filled that gap, followed by real
estate developers seeing market opportunities.
The result is a complete division of labor in the design industry and the
introduction of an assembly line in the design process. Design problems are
split up by discipline and dealt with by the respective specialists. Drafting
services in the several parts of the world work around the clock in shifts on
the same project. Separate firms handle design and site supervision without
much interaction.
This has led to design-build commissions where the architect’s role is
nothing more than that of an aesthetic building surgeon.
Architects are now in a situation where the quality of their work is increas-
ingly based on the publicity value of a design, its media relevance, and the
architect’s fame. Too often, the glitter of the scenery must cover the poor
quality of the content and the inability to deal with the real environmental
and social problems at stake. Architectural design is losing its relation to
its context. along with the values on which it has been built since its origin.
We are pulling down the three fundamental pillars on which the profession
has relied since the time of Vitruvius: “Firmitas, Utilitas, and Venustas” —
structure, function, and beauty. Only by reintegrating those three aspects
can works of architecture again merit universal admiration: architecture
that earns approval without ostentation, where form and function become
a materialized whole within a spatial and socio-cultural context, serving
the community.
3.5.3
Design as an Integrated Process
In his introduction to the Report on Integrated Practice (2006) 105, Daniel
105 Friedman cites three related developments that will fundamentally change
Friedman, D.,
2006, “Architectural
architectural practice and teaching: first, the widening influence of con-
Education and temporary theory on building composition, involving a shift in emphasis
Practice on the
Verge” in Report on
from static to dynamic form; second, the proliferation of pedagogies that
Integrated Practice, dissolve professional or disciplinary distinctions based on scale, resulting
American Institute
of Architects,
in an increasing sensitivity to the behavior and interdependency of dynamic
Washington D.C. networks across multiple scales of production; and third, the shift from
linear perspective to virtual modeling and its impact on the relation between
the logic of representation and the logic of construction. Friedman rightly
96
points out that the first two developments feature new ways of thinking
about form and design, and the third, new ways of thinking about business 106
Sanders, K., 2004,
and construction, referring to the emergence of building information “Why Building
modeling techniques, known as BIM, introduced by AutoDesk in 2002. Information
Technology is
The American Institute of Architects defines BIM as a digital model- not Working” in
based technology linked with a database of project information. The idea Architectural Record
09, McGraw-Hill,
is to reintegrate design, construction, and project management, reducing New York.
project delivery time and overall costs. In fact, this is the latest attempt in a
30-year quest to create a kind of artificial design intelligence that goes back
to the first architectural CAD application in the 1970’s and the accompany-
ing efforts to create electronic libraries of building elements. In his critical
analysis of the introduction of BIM in the architectural office, “Why Building
Information Technology Is Not Working” (2004) 106, Ken Sanders refers to
the difference between the designing-building process and the production of
airplanes and cars (where the use of BIM technology is commonplace) as a
major handicap to making information modeling techniques effective tools
for the architect’s practice. These differences are many and significant. Each
building is a unique product, made on-site, subject to varying standards
and local building codes, and subject to different liabilities of the partners
involved, dependent on local construction trades and methods. The design-
construction partnerships are temporary and made in relation to the realiza-
tion of a particular project.
This does not mean that the architects should turn away from these
new methods. But a fruitful and meaningful use will need a comprehensive
contextual framework.
The degree to which the architectural profession has been fundamentally

changed by the rapid evolution of ICT over the past decades, in particular
the growing sophistication of 3-D modeling and fabrication techniques, can
hardly be overestimated. This development raises serious questions about
the core activity of the architect, his knowledge base, his position within the
design and building process, and the traditional ethical values so essential
to a profession with direct responsibility to the natural and man-made
environment.
The analysis I have made in previous paragraphs, showing the evolution

of the design process from an unconscious to a rational process and the
accompanying disintegration of that process, indicates that there is an
urgent need for the above-mentioned contextual framework. It also indicates
that the building of such a framework is a complex and multi-layered under-
taking. This framework cannot be limited to the introduction of new tech-
niques of representation. It cannot be limited to a renewed discussion on
97
Design Sciences
form and function and how the introduction of 3-D virtual modeling has
changed our aesthetic perception, giving rise to new architectural forms, nor
can it can be limited to the fact that these new architectural forms can be
manufactured due to the growing sophistication of CAD/CAM programs, as
Frank Gehry’s office proves daily. It cannot be limited to the argument that
BIM may considerably cut design, building, and development costs, or that
liabilities should be revisited.
What is needed is a fundamental paradigm shift in architectural
education, the entrance to the profession, and the profession itself. Other
disciplines such as business administration, public administration, law, and
medicine have fundamentally changed their disciplines and raised them to
an indisputably scientific and professional level. This entails a cultural shift
from individual approaches to shared knowledge, integration of education
and practice, a reconsideration of the internship process, and the establish-
ment of a research and development strategy between the academic and
professional worlds. The key questions are how to build a generally applica-
ble knowledge base on which the architectural profession of the 21st century
can be grounded, and what is the socio-economic and cultural context in
which it should be embedded? How can we reintegrate a fractured design
situation and how can we again master the centrifugal powers that have
slowly removed the architect from his central position? What shall be done
to regain a respected status like that of other liberal professions, and what
can the architectural discipline contribute to a new academic vision?
In order to answer these questions, we need to investigate a number
of aspects that are particular to the architectural discipline; these can provide
the necessary arguments for establishing a coherent framework on which to
build an adequate knowledge base for the architectural profession. This will
be done in the following chapter.
3.5.4
Design as an Agent of Change
As we have argued, design relies on the methodologies of both science
and art. Understanding how these fields interact within a design process
is crucial for understanding the role of design in solving socio-economic
problems and issues in an innovative way. Design is the activity par excel-
lence to bring culture into a tangible reality. It unites the methods of science
and art to produce innovation and economic growth, to the benefit of the
coming generations. And it can only fulfill its task when embedded in an
environment of critical and creative thinking. In A Whole New Mind: Moving
98
from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age (2005) 107, Daniel Pink identi-
fies a clear movement from an economy and a society built on the logical, 107
Pink, D.H., 2005,
linear, computer-based capabilities of the Information Age to an economy A Whole New Mind:
and a society built on the inventive, empathic, big-picture capabilities of Moving from the
Information Age to
what is rising in its place, the Conceptual Age. the Conceptual Age,
Riverhead Books,
New York.
Design thinking should play a major role in this social and cultural tran-
108
sition. It is inherently innovative, heuristic, and experimental, driven by Schön, D.A., 1987,
empathy and focused on problem-solving. It essentially deals with complex The Reflective Practi-
tioner, Jossey-Bass,
and multivariate conditions, problems with multiple stakeholders, fuzzy San Francisco.
boundaries, and the areas where solutions may be found between disci-
109
plines. Designers, and especially architects, are known for not limiting Florida, R., 2002,
themselves to problems as “given” in a well-established brief, but will always The Rise of the
Creative Class, Basic
try to reformulate, restate, and discover problems not previously identified. Books, Cambridge,
It is one of the characteristics of reflexive practice as defined by Donald Massachusetts.
Schön in The Reflective Practitioner (1987) 108: “Problem setting is the process
in which, interactively, we name things to which we will attend and frame
the context in which we will attend to them.” Therefore, designers should
bring to the table a broad, multi-disciplinary spectrum of ideas from which
to draw inspiration.
Historically, much emphasis has been placed on design practice and pro-
duction — the design product — and far less on the educational and
research aspects or the design process and design thinking. Design in the
next decade will move beyond the product and beyond the workflow, dealing
with complete processes, entire environments, and global experiences.
Designers should have a heightened multicultural awareness,
enabling them to better explore ideas, envision themselves as multi-
disciplinary thinkers, express ideas clearly in a variety of media and circum-
stances, develop, attract, and ultimately affect diverse audiences, and explore
various professional, cultural, and social contexts as they relate to personal
and collective goals.
Richard Florida, in The Rise of Creative Class (2002) 109, argues
clearly that the key to economic growth lies not just in the ability to attract
the creative class, but to translate this underlying advantage into creative
economic outcomes in the form of new ideas, new high-tech businesses,
and regional growth. The distinguishing characteristic of the creative class
is that its members engage in work whose function is to create meaning-
ful new forms. This new class includes, according to Florida, scientists
and engineers, university professors, poets and novelists, artists, enter-
tainers, actors, designers, and architects, as well as the “thought leadership”
99
Design Sciences
of modern society: nonfiction writers, editors, cultural figures, think-tank

110 researchers, analysts, and other opinion-makers. Members of this super-
Simon, H., 1996,
The Sciences of the creative core produce new forms or designs that are readily transferable and
Artificial, 3rd Ed., MIT broadly useful — such as designing a product that can be widely made, sold,
Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. and used, or coming up with a theorem or strategy that can be applied in
111
many cases.
Cross, N., 2006, In his famous treatise, The Sciences of the Artificial (1996) 110, Herbert
Designerly Ways of
Knowing, Springer-
Simon advocates a “science of design,” that could establish a fundamental
Verlag Ltd., London. and common ground of intellectual endeavor and communication across
112 the arts, sciences, and technology. The challenge is to see design not only
Foqué, R.K.V., 1996a, as an interdisciplinary way of problem-solving, but also as a discipline on its
“Design Research:
The Third Way”, in own. It is, as Nigel Cross remarks in Designerly Ways of Knowing (2006) 111,
Doctorates in Design the paradoxical task of creating an interdisciplinary discipline.
and Architecture,
Vol. 1, Delft Univer- A consensus seems to be growing among many authors in different
sity Press, Delft, fields of knowledge about the existence of something that could be described
The Netherlands.
as “design intelligence”: a way of thinking that is different from both
scientific thinking and from an artistic approach to the world. This would
be design as a “third way” (1996) 112, with its own paradigms and method
of inquiry, and the recognition that conventional dualistic thinking does not
offer any perspectives that can be used to deal with global problems in a
world where change is the steady state.
100
4
So architects who without culture aim at manual skill cannot
gain a prestige corresponding to their labors, while those who
trust to theory and literature obviously follow a shadow and not
a reality. But those who have mastered both, like men equipped
in full armor, soon acquire influence and attain their purpose.
Vitruvius, 25 BC, Book I, Chapter 1, On the Training of Architects

Chapter 4
Understanding Architectural
Design Processes
1 4.1
The Use of Models as a Tool for

Architectural Inquiry
In the previous chapter, I explained how the design activity is centered
around three primary moments: a structuring moment, a creative moment, 113
Craik, K., 1943, The
and a communication moment. All three are interrelated and intertwined. Nature of Explanation,
They unroll during the design process through the use of “models.” Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge,
The technique of “modeling” is in fact crucial for not only our England.
understanding of the world but also for the ability to communicate with it. 114
It was the psychologist Kenneth Craik who first used the concept of mental Norman, D., 1988,
The Psychology of
models in The Nature of Explanation (1943) 113. He postulated that “the mind Everyday Things,
constructs 'small-scale models' of reality that it uses to anticipate events, to Basic Books, New
York (reissued, 2002,
reason, and to underlie explanation.” These mental models are constructed as The Design of
in the memory as a result of perception, the comprehension of discourse, Everyday Things, MIT
Press, Cambridge,
or imagination. It is crucial, according to Craik, that their structure corre- Massachusetts).
spond to the structure of that which they represent. In that sense, they are
akin to building models used by architects, to models of molecules used by
chemists, to diagrams in physics, and to formulas in mathematics. Donald
Norman, in the The Psychology of Everyday Things (1988) 114, defined the
process of modeling as one of interaction:
In interacting with the environment, with others, and with the
artifacts of technology, people form internal, mental models
of themselves and of the things with which they are inter-
acting. These models provide predictive and explanatory power
for understanding the interaction.
As we have seen, all communication is indeed based on information

transfer between a source, the sender of the information, and the receiver.
103
Design Sciences
Information per se is abstract and non-materialized, it needs to be trans-

formed into transferable messages and signals. To do so, we use formal or
physical bearers of information. We “model” the information into a readable
representation.
In this context, a model is a representation of reality, used by the
person to communicate about specific phenomena and to try to under-
stand these phenomena. Through the process of modeling, information
is processed and transformed from one model into another, based on
metaphors and analogies. The same functions and parameters are repre-
sented, but in each transformational step different “materials” and tech-
niques are used.
Within this context, architectural design can be understood as a
process of information transformation based on modeling (Fig. 1.4.1).
The architect experiences, analyses, and perceives the physical world
and constructs his mental model — and so does the client. Those two
mental models will intersect and be transformed into conceptual models by
the architect, and later transformed into physical models as representations
of the intent upon which to build reality. Ultimately the built product as a
prototype model itself will add to the physical world. This iterative process of
inquiry through modeling defines the essence of the architectural method.
As such, it places itself within the systems-thinking approach, as this
process of transformational representation invokes the structuring process,
as we have described in the previous chapter, but equally so embodies the
other two design activity moments: the creative and the communicational.
System theory indeed relies on the assumption that a whole is defined
not only by its individual elements but also by their interactions. A system
emerges when single parts or elements come together into a larger whole
to form a structure. The construction of such a structure follows particular
rules and structural patterns to fulfill the system’s goals and purpose.
Architectural inquiry is based on research by design as outlined in previous

chapters. From a systems-thinking point of view, it consists of two phases.
First, the constituent elements of the design context are defined and the
structural patterns between them identified. This is an essentially analytic
activity, taking place in the tension between objective observable facts and
subjective value judgments. It implies that the architect must determine the
organizational principles he will use within the design context. The second
phase is characterized by an active intervention in the perceived structure
of the design context. The architect will replace elements, add elements, and
change the patterns between them. This is an essentially synthetic activity.
It is an intervention in the systemic characteristics themselves to make them
fulfill the goals. The result is a definite changed context.
104
1.4.1
Architectural Design as an Information Transformation Process through Modeling
physical world before
Architect Client
Mental Mental
Observations Observations
Model Model
Experiences Experiences
Values Values
Beliefs Beliefs
Perceptions Perceptions
info-transformation
Conceptual Model
info-transformation
Formal / Physical Model
info-transformation
Building
physical world after

Design Sciences
Inherent in a design context is the enormous quantity of its elements and

their interrelationships. The information packages to be modeled, both on
the level of quantifiable and qualitative parameters, are of an almost infinite
complexity.
Therefore, architectural design problems are always per se contra-
dictory, ambivalent, and incomplete. This poses some serious methodolog-
ical questions about the use of models in the design process in relation
to inherent characteristics of the models themselves.
Norman (1988, see note 114 p. 103) mentions some of these: Models
are always incomplete and generally inaccurate representations; they contain
errors and even contradictions; they are constantly evolving; they provide
simplified explanations of complex phenomena; and they contain measures
of uncertainty about their validity. Consequently, modeling is in fact a “poor”
technique to use to inquire about the world. Why is that? Why is it neverthe-
less a powerful tool for inquiry and understanding?
Modeling simultaneously takes place on three levels: syntactic, semantic,

and pragmatic. (Figs.1.4.2 and 1.4.3)
1 The syntactic level deals with the vocabulary, grammar, and
syntax of the modeling language. Of primary importance on this
level is the accuracy with which knowledge and data can be trans-
formed into a model. The syntactic level provides the elements
and signs, the combinatory rules and structural patterns that
can be used to construct the model. In this sense, syntax is most
important as the underlying cornerstone for the structuring
moment in design.
2 The semantic level deals with meaning and value: what do the
elements, the signs, and their combinations stand for; how
precisely does the model represent the desired and intended
meaning of the maker? On the semantic level, signs become
symbols embedded in a cultural context. They can refer to real
or virtual physical realities, but also to conceptual ideas and
thoughts. In that sense, semantics is most essential in the
creative moment.
3 The pragmatic level deals with the effectiveness of the model:
how effective is the model for the user? Does he understand
its purpose? Does it convey the intended message, and to
what extent? Pragmatics is about bridging the explanatory gap
between the model and the user. The utterances and their con-
textual interpretation are crucial to that process, referencing the
106
1.4.2
Levels of Modeling
Natural Logical / Artificial Modeling

Languages Languages
syntactic • Vocabulary • Set of Symbols • Collection of

• Grammar and Syntax • Operational Rules Single Elements
• Combinatory Rules
semantic • Language as a • Strings of Symbols • Models Referring to

Representation of as a Representation Reality (Real and/or
Real and/or Fictitious of all Possible Worlds Virtual)
States
pragmatic • Rhetoric as a Medium • Relation Artificial • Effect of the Model

for Convincing and Language /User on the User
Influencing • Explanatory Power
1.4.3
Modeling as a Tool for Architectural Inquiry: Levels / Moments
Structuring Creative Communicative

Moment Moment Moment
syntactic
level
semantic
level
pragmatic
level
Design Sciences
difference between the “objective” or “literal” meaning of the

115 model and the meaning the maker is trying to convey through
“Beyond Design the model. In that sense, pragmatics is paramount to the com-
Methods: Arguments munication moment.
for a Practical Design
Theory”, in Changing
Design (Eds. Evans, Models essentially use a descriptive and static language on both the syntactic
B., Powell, J., and
Talbot, R.), John and semantic levels. This implies that you must reduce that which you want
Wiley & Sons, to represent into forms that can be described by the modeling language
New York.
used. The language is a given, and you must cut the phenomena to fit the
language. A 2D drawing, for instance, may allow for a coherent represen-
tation of a building layout and the way rooms are interconnected, but it
cannot give any indication of the special experience of walking through that
building. Therefore, your interests may be better served by an animated 3D
digital model.
Moreover, a model can only represent those parameters and functions
that are unambiguously definable. Hence highly complex systems, such as
architectural contexts, can never be entirely “caught” in a model. There will
always exist an indescribable remainder outside the model. Thus modeling
will always result in a loss of complexity and reduction of reality.
As a result, it is of paramount importance to make well-considered
choices regarding the modeling technique to be used in relation to what the
model should effectively represent and convey.
This brings us to the question of the use of models as a method of archi-

tectural investigation on a methodological level. I have argued in “Beyond
Design Methods: Arguments for a Practical Design Theory” (1982) 115, that it
is essential to examine the use of models critically in terms of their under-
lying theoretical frameworks and socio-cultural contexts. This assertion
is based on the principle that theoretical questions may be overlooked in a
purely methodological discussion, as implied in the stereotypical question,
“If method A is not working, which method B does?” An answer on that
level works when we are looking to legitimize a specific method. It is,
however, inadequate when it comes to analyzing underlying value patterns,
analyzing the structure of a societal consensus, analyzing the function of
theory in the practice of design, and clarifying the subjective position of the
architect within the context in which he is working.
If we constrain our inquiry to the level of methodology, it is not
possible to investigate the relationship between theory and practice, nor
can the socio-cultural function of architectural design be discussed. In the
Cartesian view, as we have seen, there is a fundamental dualism between
theory and practice and between man and his environment.
108
Understanding Architectural Design Processes
As a result of the purely methodological inquiry, reality is seen as objective.

The result is a descriptive relationship between reality and the theory 116
explaining it. Within that context, the architect continues to utilize models as Design in Architec-
a design language, and he perceives the design context as something that is ture, John Wiley &
Sons, London and
independent of him, following its own course, something that can be inves- New York.
tigated and objectively represented. Geoffrey Broadbent (1973, 1976) 116, sees
a solution to this problem, suggesting that the architect has to reach as great “The Development of
a completeness of “representations” as possible. “It is a guarantee to open Design Methods”, in
Ontwerpmethodieken
the discussion on underlying norms and values.” In Broadbent’s vision, 12, (Eds. Foqué,
this is a methodological question. He sees the evolution in design theory R.K.V., Huybrechts,
J., and Putter, H.),
as a shift of level from the search for design strategies to the construction Delft University, Delft,
of models that can effectively describe the design problem. His analysis is The Netherlands.
correct, but does not take into account the epistemological dimension of the
problem as pointed out above.
In order to know the values behind the method used, we should analyze the
way knowledge is structured within it and fundamental values are produced
by it. In other words, the method of architectural inquiry is not value-free,
but produces its own limitations that will ultimately influence the design
results. It obeys the law of bipolarity in the design process. Architectural
design is in that sense not a problem of reduction but of transformation
from the life-factual to the design-factual. The architect always organizes the
facts in such a way that the structure gives him the ability to carry out his
design activity, both stemming from and contributing towards the models
used.
Hence, architectural inquiry will always be a confrontation between
the structuring rules underlying the mental model, the conceptual model,
and the physical model. These rules are embedded in the syntax of the
modeling language in the first place, determining the borders of the design
“playground,” but also largely determining the semantic scope of the model
and the pragmatic power of it. Synthesis in architectural design is not only a
matter of uniting design sub-solutions into one overall solution in a physical
sense, but of integrating facts and values, a matter of confronting what is
with what could be.
109
Design Sciences
1 4.2
Variety and Uniqueness

Maybe one of the main fallacies when it comes to understanding archi-
117 tectural design processes stems from looking at them as analogous to other
Le Corbusier, 1923,
Vers une Architecture,
design and construction processes, such as those of the car or aviation
Editions Crès, Paris. industry and industrial processes in general. This mistake was propagated by
118 the first CAD software developers, who assumed that their programs written
Conrads, U., 1993, for engineering applications could be transferred “mutatis mutandis” to the
Programs and
Manifestoes on architectural practice.
20th-Century
Architecture, MIT
Press, Cambridge, But already in the 1920’s, the protagonists of the modern movement were
Massachusetts. charmed by the new wonders of engineering. The successes of technol-
ogy were inspiring the great architects of that time. Le Corbusier (1923) 117
advocated in his Vers une architecture the evolving esthetic of mass-pro-
duction building: “La machine à habiter” and the works of engineers
who, according to him, achieve harmony inspired by the law of economy
and governed by mathematical calculation. In 1924, Mies van der Rohe,
quoted by Ulrich Conrads in his Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-
Century Architecture (1993) 118, maintained that explicitly linking archi-
tecture to industrialized forms of building solved even the artistic problems
involved. The CIAM La Sarraz declaration of 1928, also quoted in Conrads,
states very clearly:
The most efficient method of production is that which arises
from rationalization and standardization. Rationalization and
standardization act directly on working methods both in modern
architecture (conception) and in the building industry. It is
urgently necessary for architecture, abandoning the outmoded
conceptions connected with the class of craftsmen, henceforth
to rely upon the present realities of industrial technology, even
though such an attitude must perforce lead to products funda-
mentally different from those of past epochs.
Architects have always been balanced between technology and craft

and, as we have seen, the method of architectural inquiry has always relied
on a rather foggy combination of scientific and artistic methodologies.
To derive a general design theory from the principles of engineering design

is very tempting, as at first glance, there seems to be a lot to learn from
these so-called more advanced and automated industries. The underlying
110
process of engineering design appears to be analogous and follows object-

ively the same pattern, but is more comprehensive and structured, hence 119
Burie, J.B., 1978,
more understandable. This is one of the reasons why the engineering design “Het gedrag van
process was there at the birth of design methodology and theory in the organisaties in het
bouwproces”, in
1960’s and has stood as an example for studying the architectural design Handboek Bouwen en
process. The most positive effect of this approach has been the introduction Wonen, Van Loghum
Slaterus, Deventer,
of systemic thinking into architecture, paving the way for the introduction The Netherlands.
of the digital media into the architecture practice and the emerging devel-
opment of a discipline-characteristic digital language. At the same time,
this approach has given new insights and inspired new theoretical thinking
about the essence of architectural form and structure, their interrelation and
contextual embedding.
A closer analysis of the two processes reveals important differences, however,

essential for understanding the true nature of the design and construction
process as fundamentally different from the process in other industries. If
we want to establish a true body of knowledge for the architectural disci-
pline, it is paramount to identify and to investigate these differences.
Jean Baptiste Burie was one of the first to distinguish the building
process from other production processes, in his Het gedrag van organisaties
in het bouwproces (1978) 119. Without further elaboration, he mentioned three
major characteristics, typical for the building industry: (1) the strong involve-
ment of the governing authorities, (2) the dissimilarity of each production
process, and (3) the inter-organizational character of that process. All three
point at a particular degree of complexity:
1 Legal complexity: As the primary function of architecture is to
give shelter to human activities, it directly influences human
behavior and is constantly balancing between individual
needs and the broader societal context, between privacy and
community, between private and public property. Moreover, the
economic, ecological, and socio-cultural impact is enormous.
This is the primary reason why governments, being the pro-
tectors of the common interest, want to regulate as much as
possible the process that underlies the creation of that built
environment. As a consequence, more than in other industries,
the architecture production is subject to an increasing and con-
flicting collection of codes and laws, differing from country to
country and from state to state.
2 Production complexity: Each building is unique and erected at
a specific site, under distinct contextual conditions, physically
and culturally. The building technology involved may differ each
111
Design Sciences
time, and each building involves teams of different workers to

120 carry out the production.
“The Case Study as 3 Organizational complexity: Each building process underlies an
an Extension into
Scholarship and increasingly complex combination of individual partners, with
Research”, in Pro- their individual organizational structures. They participate in the
ceedings of the Case
Study Work Group, process with their own agendas, their own goals and aims, often
Open Meeting 3, contradictory and conflicting. They bring to the table their partic-
AIA, San Francisco.
ular specialized knowledge, molded in their professional jargon,
often causing misunderstanding and resentment.
I will take these three aspects as a starting point for further elaboration, as
I already did briefly in my contribution to the AIA case study work group
(2003) 120. Examining them leads to the identification of four paradoxes.
4.2.1
Variety of Architectural Theories and
Uniqueness of the Design End Product
It is one of the fundamental characteristics of Postmodern society that
121 there is no longer a unified theory about architecture, nor is there a
Finkielkraut, A., 1987,
La Défaite de la common framework or value system to assess the multitude of architectural
Pensée, Gallimard, approaches or attitudes towards design problems. On the contrary, variety in
Paris.
combination with strict individual beliefs has become an intrinsic feature of
architecture today.
This makes it almost impossible to answer the question of whether a
building is good or bad. Is it “good architecture” or is it “mediocre”?
The uniqueness of the building as an end product of design stands in

sharp contrast to the variety of theories that could have been applied and
the absence of an absolute value system to which the work might refer.
We are thus confronted with one of the main crises in architecture today:
the complete lack of a frame of reference to compare, evaluate, and appre-
ciate buildings, and the absolute absence of a solid set of criteria to do so.
This is another illustration of Alain Finkielkraut’s La Défaite de la Pensée
(Defeat of the Mind, 1987) 121. Under the influence of stardom, architecture
more and more situates itself on the level of “anything goes”, as long as
it bears the signature of such a star. Architectural quality has become
directly proportional to the degree of media attention and the publicity
value of the building. The “starchitect” has become a brand, like Coca-Cola
or Pepsi, Nike or Adidas, and consequently architecture has become a
112
commodity and has placed itself on the level of consumption and fashion.
It has become an uprooted architecture that shows and not serves; that is 122
Pallasmaa, J., 2005,
built on quicksand, disconnected from the Vitruvian principles of firmness, Encounters, Raken-
commodity, and delight. nustieto Oy, Helsinki.
123
Perez-Gomez, A.,
Strangely enough, architects conform themselves to this role model. Joining 1990, Architecture
the league of the stars, becoming famous, is seen as the ultimate goal and and the Crisis of
Modern Science, MIT
the crowning of a career. The professional organizations and journals, the Press, Cambridge,
way in which awards, honors, and prizes are won and selections made for Massachusetts.
participation in architectural competitions, all enforce the same trend —
even architectural education. Schools compete to have the largest number
of icons in their lecture series; faculty selection is done on the basis of fame
rather than on the intrinsic quality of the candidate’s work; and students
are directed toward the most fashionable segment of contemporary archi-
tecture as exemplary for good practice and great architecture. Architecture
has become so intensively a game that the reality of how a building is experi-
enced has been completely overlooked.
In Encounters (1995) 122, Juhani Pallasmaa points out that there is a
direct connection with the advancement of modern science being dominated
by the principles of atomism and reductionism. “Architecture becomes a
play with form, combining various visual elements of form and space to a
concrete composition built up out of a selection of given basic elements.”
Unfortunately, these compositions are no longer in touch with the socio-
cultural reality from which they have emerged. Alberto Perez-Gomez, in
Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science (1990) 123, describes this situation
as follows: “The poetical content of reality, the a priori of the world, which
is the ultimate frame of reference for any truly meaningful architecture, is
hidden beneath a thick layer of formal explanations.”
Where “formalism” in Classical architecture was totally embedded in
the value system of the times and socio-culturally supported, it is nowadays
emptied of any context.
All of this contributes to the paradoxical crisis with which contempo-

rary architecture is confronted. Never before has architecture had such
widespread exposure and been so highly valued, culturally by the public,
but at the same time it has relinquished its authority by explicitly denying
its own content and mission. Architects are defeating their own profession
by cutting off the branch on which they sit, leaving their discipline with-
out support.
How can we reverse this decline? As permanent change has become the
constant state of contemporary society, we should be aware that the search
113
Design Sciences
for an ultimate architectural and/or design theory is a dangerous myth,

as architects are dealing not with the natural but with the man-made, arti-
ficial world. The bipolarity of the design process, as we have defined it, has
the consequence that architects are creating and modifying the environment
and are at the same time confronted with a kind of “autonomous environ-
ment”, which imposes its own rules and is subject to its own paradigms. If
we look at architecture that way, we should be able to redefine our concept of
architectural theory and cope with the variety aspect of it. We should invest
in building knowledge, critical thinking, and methodological reflection. We
should try to understand how “architectural products” come into being, the
effects they cause on the environment, and the way they are used by the
consumer. We should investigate through comparative studies to discover
the differences and similarities of contemporary architectural discourses,
giving ourselves a broadening insight into how the architect’s mind works,
the methods he is using, and the paradigms to which he is indebted.
Case study research is a key to this, as we shall see in the second part of
this book. It will give us the necessary contextual climate to link the variety
of architectural theories to the uniqueness of the products. It will provide
answers to the question of whether a building is “good” or “bad” by defining
a quality borderline which cannot be trespassed — a borderline that is not
only defined by technical or functional criteria, but also by criteria belonging
to the essential human senses, by which we experience beauty, enjoyment,
satisfaction; a borderline that is rooted in a system of values and beliefs and
therefore can be critically questioned and argued. This will help us not only
to ask the right questions regarding theoretical concepts behind the design,
but also to see correspondences, inconsistencies, and contextual barriers.
In other words, it will allow us to discover the opportunities and the con-
straints of architectural theory in a real world designing and building
situation, offering key knowledge for establishing an architectural science.
4.2.2
Variety of Participants and Uniqueness of the
Design Process
Typical for the designing and building process in a real life situation is the
variety of the participants involved: the architect, the client, the user, the
engineering consultants, the contractor, the governmental bodies, etc. They
all have their individual value systems, architectural beliefs, and strategies,
and they pursue their own different goals. They often conflict which each
other; they sometimes endorse each other. This means that all these parties
114
will try to influence the decision-making process in order to realize their

own set goals. 124
The nature of the designing and building process itself does not “Design participation:
allow for a reduction in either the variety of participants or of the variety of The Medium and the
Message”, in Design
messages. In an earlier publication, “Design Participation: The Medium and Coalition Team, Vol. 3,
the Message (1985) 124, I called that the “asymmetry of knowledge,”, para- Eindhoven University
of Technology,
phrasing Horst Rittel’s “symmetry of ignorance,” where, in a 1972 interview Eindhoven, The
at Berkeley 125, he pointed out that no participant in a design process can Netherlands.
guarantee that his knowledge of the design problem is superior to the 125
Rittel, H., 1972,
knowledge of other participants. “Interview” in DMG-
Occasional Paper, nr. 1,
On the other hand, every designing and building process is unique in time
and place, unable to be repeated. Every decision made allows for a sequence
of other possible decisions and excludes a series of decisions that could
have been made. Hence such a process can be described as a decision-
making tree, converging in time and place. Once the building is finished, all
decisions have been made. This problem of the variety among participants
raises serious questions about the professionalism of each party involved.
A balanced decision-making process presumes both respect for the know-
ledge of the specialist and willingness to share that with the other. That is
the basis for interdisciplinary collaboration, and it is precisely that balance
that is at stake right now.
Over the last decades, the building industry has become increas-
ingly aware of the importance of research and development. New materials,
techniques, and management approaches have been introduced at growing
speed and are changing the industry drastically. Sophisticated financing
systems have been developed, and projects are becoming increasingly inte-
grated, global, and international.
Clients are more mature and articulate. More than ever before, they
have a clear idea what they want and how to get it. They have learned to
argue their needs and wishes and to critically question the design solutions
offered to them. Unfortunately, the architect did not see or did not wish
to see that evolution. He slowly abandoned the “decision-making field,”
leaving it to the other parties. The only thing he kept to himself is form
and appearance, as explained above. The architect has put himself on the
fringe of the designing-building game. Instead of being in the center of
the decision-making, he is wandering on the periphery.
Apart from the above-mentioned asymmetry of knowledge and conse-

quently of power and leadership, there is also the problem of communi-
cation among the parties involved. This refers to the different aspects of
the communication moment during the design activity as outlined in
115
Design Sciences
a previous chapter. Communication during the designing and building

process not only involves written language and/or speech, but the total
spectrum of media, such as drawings, physical models, computer animations,
photographs, algorithms, calculations, diagrams, etc. The use of these
media involves modeling to transform abstract information into a transmit-
table message that occurs on all three levels: the syntactic, the semantic, and
the pragmatic.
The question now is, “How can we make use of the traditional
communication model for a more profound understanding of the decision-
making mechanisms during a designing and building process?” The
complexity of this process is, on the one hand, directly proportional to the
varied characteristics of the different participants on the level of messages
sent, media used, and methods applied; on the other hand, it is dependent
upon the uniqueness of the designing-building team composition, the
design problem to be solved, and the end product envisioned.
• Variety of Participants and Uniqueness of the Designing-
building Team
Although the several roles in a designing and building process are
always the same, the firms or the actual persons playing roles are
different each time. Very often a team for a given project starts as
a collection of mere strangers, working together for the first time.
They not only pursue different goals and interests, but they have
different professional expertise, ranging from extreme specialist
knowledge about certain aspects to absolute naiveté about others.
So a person may be at the absolute top as far as systems integra-
tion is concerned, but know absolutely nothing about foundation
techniques and structural strength.
• Variety of Messages and Uniqueness of the Design Problem
Although every architectural commission puts generally the
same problems on the table — problems of structure, systems
integration, massing, orientation, occupancy — the problem
structure itself is different each time. The individual elements
are different, as are the relationships between them and the
context wherein they appear. The building site is different —
the physical and climatological conditions — but so are the
materials and the technology. Even if the building belongs to
the same typology, the brief is unique, functions are defined dif-
ferently, and values have individual interpretations. There are
allmost no grounds for making a useful comparison between
116
two architectural design problems. They are absolutely unique

on the level of definition. At the same time, there is the variety
of participants and the uniqueness of the team gathered to tackle
and solve these unique problems. These factors, in turn, lead to a
wide variety of messages transferred during the designing-build-
ing process. The different “professional languages” used result
in kaleidoscopic information transfer and in a communication
process seriously compromised by noise on all three levels:
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. All members of the design-
ing-building team are both senders and receivers of information
and try to build a complete model of the design problem at stake
— a model that they understand, which they can share with the
other parties involved, and on which they can act and apply their
specialist expertise.
• Variety of Media and Methods and Uniqueness of the Process
and End Product
The situation outlined above results in the fact that architec-
tural designing and building processes are characterized by a
wide range of codes and languages used during the different
modeling phases: from freehand sketches to technical drawings,
from simple cardboard models to sophisticated digital anima-
tions, from rule-of-thumb approaches to exact mathematical
calculations, and from qualitative descriptions and value
judgments to undeniable fact and figures. On top of this, there
may not be much mutual knowledge about these codes among
the team members. They speak different “languages,” and even
if they speak the same one, the accent is different. Nonetheless,
it is essential that the outcome of the process should satisfy the
goals and needs of all parties involved.
The above analysis tries to give a picture of the complexity of the communi-
cation moment during an architectural designing-building process. The
reality, however, is even more complex, as all these parameters interfere with
each other on different levels and in the several phases of the process. The
Variety/Uniqueness Matrix (Fig. 1.4.4) illustrates how a tremendous “noise-
environment” is created, with almost unlimited variety on all three levels:
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. I have called this the “Design Noise
Box”: the communication context wherein every designing-building process
is embedded (Fig.1.4.5).
117
1.4.4
The Variety / Uniqueness Matrix
uniqueness
of Design and Building Problems Process and
Coalition Team Product
variety of
participants
messages
media and
methods
1.4.5
The Design Noise-Box
pragmatic level
Syntactic Level
uniqueness
of
Design and Building Problems Process and
variety of
semantic level
Syntactic Level
uniqueness
of
variety of
syntactic level
Syntactic Level
uniqueness
of
variety of
participants
messages
media and
methods
If we want to improve communication among all parties involved, we have

to reduce this noise box and look for adequate media, understood by all the
participants of the process. It is just as crucial that we understand the role
and mission of each of these participants.
How can we gain insight into this complex process of decision-making

during each stage of the designing-building process? The attempt to recon-
struct the design process is a good method to analyze this, as I shall explain
in the second part of this book. It will allow us to detect the important hinge
points, where the design moves in a decisive direction, by identifying at
each of these moments the leading decision-making parties and the reasons
behind their decisions.
This may give us some insight into the weight and influence of that
decision on the built result.
4.2.3
Asymmetry of Knowledge and Symmetry of
Understanding
There are two important misunderstandings about the “knowledge con-
dition” of the several participants in the design/built process, which are 126
Rittel, H., 1972,
diametrically opposed. The first one is the “symmetry of ignorance”, “Interview” in DMG-
mentioned by Horst Rittel in a 1972 interview 126: the belief that none of Occasional Paper, nr. 1,
the participants can be expected to have professional expertise regarding
the design problems as defined and seen by the other parties involved.
The second one, opposed to the first one, can be defined as “the expert-
omniscient”: the belief by every participant that he knows better about
all aspects of the design problem than everybody else. Architects tend
to suffer from the latter. The only way to overcome both understand-
ings is: first, the willingness to mutually accept that every party involved
in the process has very specific and professional knowledge needed to
come to an integrated solution; second, the firm individual awareness of
every participant that he himself has essential expert knowledge, which
the other has not, and which the other needs to solve the problem he is
confronted with. The belief in this asymmetry of knowledge is crucial
and vital. It brings true professionalism back to the designing-building
arena and, more important, embeds it in an interdisciplinary context.
All parties become partners in the same process, realizing that while
their knowledge is partial, needing to be merged with the others’ knowledge,
it is also absolutely crucial and indispensable to coming to an optimal design
end product.
119
Design Sciences
Once we have recognized that each participant in the design coalition

127 stands for a vital piece of the design puzzle, we have taken an important
McLuhan, M., 1967,
Understanding Media, step towards the understanding of the design decision-making process. It
Sphere Books Ltd., is a dynamic communication process among “experts” who are engaged
London; also 1994,
Understanding in a process of sending and receiving messages during the communication
Media, The Exten- moment of the design activity, as we have defined it. The aim is to find a
sions of Man, MIT
Press, Cambridge, solution, understood by all the parties involved and agreed upon as the best
Massachusetts. possible one, within the given context.
From that perspective, we can define the design process as a process
determined at the beginning by a state of asymmetry of expert knowledge
and one that, as it proceeds, turns into a state of symmetry of understand-
ing. Fig.1.4.6 illustrates this process between the architect and the client. It
is clear that the same scheme applies to the other parties involved, such as
the engineering firms, the contractor, etc.
I have pointed out that the media we use for communication during the
designing-building process are vital to making the symmetry of understand-
ing possible at all. This means that we should pay more attention when
selecting those media, which are understood by all the participants on all
three levels of communication. These “languages” should have sufficient
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic capacity to deal with highly complex
information clusters belonging to different disciplines and areas of know-
ledge. Contemporary CAD-systems and the development of sophisticated
building information models will become high-powered media with almost
unlimited semantic capacity. The speed of information-handling they offer
has already reduced considerably the gap between the asymmetry state of
knowledge and the symmetry one, and will do so even more in the future.
From the perspective of the communication moment, the medium is the

method, but at the same time “the medium is the message.” Marshall
McLuhan used this slogan in Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man
(1976 and 1994) 127, to point out that the message of any medium or technol-
ogy is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human
affairs. This gives an extra dimension to the communication moment.
Design is not only a process that is engaged in the handling and process-
ing of information between the several team partners but it is a medium
of design itself. It introduces a new level of designing by extending our
own individual brains and capabilities. What matters is the way in which
the communication moment changes the relationships among the parties
involved in the design process, the way it changes attitudes towards the
design end product and the use of it afterwards. That is the message of the
medium.
120
1.4.6
The Communication Process in Architecture Design
asymmetry of
knowledge
medium
Specific Architectural
Messages
Coding Decoding
professional
professional
knowledge
knowledge
The Symmetry of
specific
specific
Architect Client
Designer Understanding User
Design End-Product
Decoding Coding
Specific
Client-User Messages
medium
noise–box
Design Sciences
4.2.4
Variety and Uniqueness of Space and Time
Architecture not only deals with space and time as its primary matter, but is
also produced within very specific time and place conditions. Architectural
production is contextually determined to an extent that is different from
other production processes. This context has several dimensions ranging
from the physical to the socio-cultural, the economic to the juridical.
A building is built on a particular site. It cannot exist outside that physical

place; it is intrinsically bound. This is one of the reasons that makes it
unique. This physical context makes architecture subject to all the char-
acteristics of the site where it is produced. Therefore, it cannot escape its
consequences. The physical context describes the design latitude on the level
of quantitative decisions, such as the choice of foundation techniques and
related structures, choice of climatological and other systems, orientation
and solar impact, etc. The socio-cultural context provides maneuvering space
for the more qualitative design decisions: how to integrate the building into
the urban tissue, how to deal with problems of massing and form, color,
and choice of materials, where to situate the entrance, how to solve possible
security problems, etc. The economic context imposes financial limits on
both the micro and the macro level: it deals with budgets and the macro-
economic circumstances of the area. The juridical context defines the legal
boundaries within which to operate, such as the several building codes, the
safety regulations, tax rules, and the applicable common law.
The fragmentation of the design process, as described in Chapter 3, has

important consequences for these site-specific issues. The architect does
not design the building at the site anymore, but at his office, and in multi-
disciplinary teams. Of course, he visits the site, studies it thoroughly, records
his observations and experiences, and makes the necessary analyses. On the
basis of these findings, he reconstructs that site in his office, using sketches,
drawings, physical models, and computer simulations — and with Google
Earth he can even virtually visit the place at any time. But in the end he relies
on models of the building site to make essential design decisions. The same
is true for the interpretation of the socio-cultural context and the decisions
made within the economic and legal contours of the project. The result is
a substantial alienation between the design place and the building site.
The several partners of the design team make their decisions on the basis of
a modeled reality, distorted in space and time.
122
Buildings are also affected by time: during construction and again during
occupancy. The building process itself is subject to a time span consider-
ably longer than that of any other production process by virtue of the nature
and the state of the art of the construction technology itself. Construction,
compared to other industrial processes, is in fact extremely slow and
cannot be compressed beyond well-defined limits. Buildings may take years
before they are finished and occupied. At the same time, societal needs
are changing with an increasing pace. More often than ever, buildings are
already outdated before they are even used. This has severe implications
during the designing-building process. Design solutions have to be reviewed
before they are even given concrete form. Building parts have to be altered
and modified during construction itself.
Moreover, buildings are subject to aging not only physically but also
functionally and emotionally. Building materials react to time in different
ways; certain building parts become obsolete before others; technological
evolution and new insights necessitate building systems adaptations; the
functional demands at the origin of the design may not only change but
become totally inadequate in a short period in relation to rapidly changing
organizational structures and socio-economic circumstances. This aspect
of the variety and uniqueness of space and time is increasingly becoming
another serious problem confronting the architect.
4.2.5
Variety of Liabilities and Uniqueness of
Responsibilities
More than any other profession, architecture is subject to a wide variety
of liabilities, differing from country to country, but always with high
penalties for errors. These liabilities apply to not only the design concept
but extend to the totality of the designing and building process, including
construction methods, quality of materials, safety, site supervision, building
codes, budget control, etc.
That is why the architect, suffering from this unique and complex
responsibility, has tried to minimalize these liabilities. But by doing so, he
has gradually given up his leading position, leaving it to the other players in
the field.
It is obvious that taking up responsibility involves an awareness of the risks,

which in turn presupposes a solid knowledge base and extensive experience.
123
Design Sciences
This is precisely what is lacking, as we have outlined above. The architect

.
has, gradually, concentrated on the conceptual aspects of the process, and

even that is threatened now by the digital evolution, producing alien forms
that enchant the architect, who no longer knows how they were originated,
much less how to build them. The architect’s responsibility has never
been so high, and at the same time he has lost all connection with his own
expertise and professional knowledge. He has become an ordinary seaman
on the designing-building ship, with the liabilities of the captain.
1 4.3
The Interaction of the Parts

Maybe the most intriguing aspect of the designing and building process is
the way in which specific sub-solutions for specific sub-design problems
form an integrated whole at the end. It is not easy, even for an experienced
designer, to obtain insight in this design melting pot. Many of these design
solutions are arrived at intuitively, without explicit reasoning, based on
practical experience and standard methods, in a linear process: plan lay-out,
façades, construction methods, detailing, etc.
Nonetheless, this interaction of the parts is the essence of architectural
design itself and the keystone needed to make the transformation from analy-
sis to synthesis, to deal with a fragmented process.
The degree of integration of these several sub-solutions is indeed a
direct measure of the architectural quality of the building. Important to this
process is the understanding of the relationships among parts on several
design levels — the environment, the building, the exterior, the interior,
and the building detail — and within these levels themselves. It is of crucial
importance to have an insight into how architectural form is determined
by construction and function, and vice versa; how the characteristics of
materials define detailing and influence perception; how occupancy contri-
butes to sustainability in relation to the degree of systems integration and
the orientation of the building. A nearly infinite number of such questions
can be asked, pointing to the high degree of complexity of architectural
design systems. Answers to these questions enable in-depth study of the
way an architectural product is the result of an almost indefinable amount of
interrelated sub-solutions and decisions on both macro and micro levels.
These answers will help us to discover the essentially synergetic
character of an architectural object.
At first sight finding these answers looks to be a tedious and repetitive
operation, but if it is done well the result is usually a consistent body of
124
knowledge, which transcends the particular case. It offers general insight

into the mechanisms behind the interactions of the parts and the way
experienced architects deal with them. The architectural process becomes
more transparent, and judgment about whether a building is good or bad
becomes more objective and, at the same time, more arguable.
1 4.4
Concurrent Architecture and the

Integrated Practice
The development of science and technology over the last decades has
completely shifted the level on which architecture should be practiced. 128
Foqué, R.K.V.,
It has taken architecture from the micro level to a global macro level. Where 1999b, Architects for
originally a building was considered as an individual and isolated case, Health Open Lecture
at RIBA, London,
we are increasingly aware of the importance of the interactions between unpublished.
buildings, the integration into the landscape and the urban tissue, and the
influence of buildings on the natural environment. Questions about the
ecological consequences of buildings, the effect on individual well-being,
and on the socio-cultural environment as a whole are becoming essential.
It should be acknowledged that the way in which the architectural pro-
fession is dealing with these problems is still very traditional, based on a
fragmented approach, and often blurred by pseudo-artistic aspirations and
ambition for immediate personal success.
In my Architects for Health Open Lecture at the RIBA (1999) 128, I made
the argument that we still use a linear model to describe the life cycle of a
building (Fig.1.4.7): briefing (or “programming,” depending on local usage),
designing, building, and occupying. The results obtained in the previous
phase are the input for the next one. The process points in one direction and
is seen as irreversible in time. Abstract information becomes conceptual
and gets structured into more concrete models, models get transformed
into a real artifact, the building, which in its turn becomes an operational,
living system.
This linear model of the designing and building process is no longer tenable.
It involves repeated revisiting of a phase as its inconsistencies become
apparent in the next phase. The penalties are often high. The overall quality
of the building usually suffers from it, planning schemes are not upheld,
125
1.4.7
The Traditional Linear Designing and Building Model
Abstract Concrete
operating
briefing designing building and
occupying
time
1.4.8
The Concurrent Designing and Building Model

abstract
briefing
Pattern of Interaction
designing
building
concrete
operating and occupying
virtual real
the budget is exceeded, participants involved in the process get frustrated,

and in some cases it leads to lengthy, often costly and painful lawsuits. 129
Friedman, D.,
2006, “Architectural
The evolution in information and communication technology has provided Education and
Practice on the
us with powerful tools that enable us to replace this linear model with a Verge”, in Report on
more integrated one. Building information modeling makes it possible to Integrated Practice,
American Institute
link the briefing (or programming) phase and the design phase with the of Architects,
construction phase and the operation of a building into one comprehensive Washington D.C.
whole. This technology makes it possible to experiment in virtual space, to
test design hypotheses, see their consequences, and determine their merit.
As a result, it causes a major shift in the relationships between different
phases of the traditional designing and building process. In “Architectural
Education and Practice on the Verge” (2006) 129, Daniel Friedman points
precisely to this aspect, arguing that building information modeling allows
designers to manipulate data points that embody dimensions, specifications,
material properties, structural behavior, and cost. BIM technology will allow
the architect to design and build in virtual space and investigate the conse-
quences of his ideas and concepts in real time. This technology can lead to a
concurrent, integrated and interactive designing-building process (Fig.1.4.8).
Within that vision, there no longer exists a division between the different
phases of the project, as was the case in the traditional models. In fact, we
should no longer speak about phases in the traditional sense but rather of
project levels: the level of the brief (or program), the level of design, the level
of construction, the level of building use.
At any given moment from the start of the project through the total
life cycle of the building, we can define the project state, indicating the status
of the project information with regard to the different levels. This will result
in patterns of interaction between project information, which is already real
— and therefore can only be changed at high cost — and information that is
still virtual — and therefore can be changed at low risk and cost. The realiza-
tion of a project can be seen as an evolutionary process, where data undergo
a metamorphosis from abstract ideas to concrete facts and pass from a
virtual universe into the real world. At any given moment, all participants
involved in the designing-building process can have the same comprehen-
sive building model at their disposal. A parallel concurrent model replaces
the old linear model.
127
Design Sciences
1 4.5
The Inversion of Design

Capacity and Research Capacity
Building information modeling technology is an important tool for realizing
130 the concurrent approach described above. It is clear that the introduction of
Foqué, R.K.V., 1971b,
“Towards an Evolu-
this tool strongly affects the traditional approach to design problems, thus
tionary Integrated changing the fundamentals of the design process and the way architectural
CAAD System”, in
CAAD (Ed. M. Daru),
practice is organized. It is less frequently recognized that the introduction
Bouwcentrum, of BIM technology fundamentally shifts the architect’s knowledge base
Rotterdam.
and the way the architect should be educated and trained. Even profound
and detailed disciplinary knowledge, such as architectural history, archi-
tectural theory, building technology, etc., will become irrelevant if they stay
fragmented and not integrated into a greater whole. Building information
modeling requires extraordinary insight into the relationships between
different kinds of disciplinary knowledge, the interaction between them, and
the way this knowledge can be integrated on the design-build level.
In 1971, in what was probably the first international congress on Computer-

Aided Architectural Design, organized by the Bouwcentrum, Rotterdam,
I made a plea for such an evolutionary integrated CAAD system (1971b) 130,
arguing for the shifting role of the architect in the future and the emergence
of the “architect-researcher” next to the “architect-designer,” due to the intro-
duction of information technology in the architectural profession.
The characteristics of such a system are still valid. It should be able to
provide information solicited and unsolicited. It should have cross-relation
capacity and understand the relationships and interferences between partic-
ular bits of specialized information, and it should have the ability to learn.
BIM technology indeed needs cross-disciplinary information if it
wants to create added value for the designer, and it can only become a true
design tool if it learns from one case to another.
As a consequence, we have to investigate these aspects to be able to

program BIM tools. This involves research both into the design process
and about the design process; it requires the establishment of a research-
by-design tradition as explained above. The design capacity in the office
needs to be complemented by sufficient research capacity: the capacity to
make the design process transparent, to study the effect of design decisions
within a concurrent design situation, and to collect, analyze, and appreciate
relevant information in one particular situation and understand how that
128
information can be used in other similar situations. It is precisely that infor-

mation that is needed to feed in its turn the BIM programs with content
knowledge and make them more effective and relevant. Concurrent archi-
tecture, based upon building information modeling, needs data and verifia-
ble knowledge on which these models can be based. Architectural education
has a leading role to fulfill here: More then ever it must be research-based.
This research is par excellence an interdisciplinary activity, building its own
logic and epistemological autonomy, determined by five fields of tension,
characterized by their triangular relationship. I call it the triangulation of
architectural research (Fig.1.4.9)
1 The contextual triangulation, which is based on the intertwining
of historical, socio-cultural, and political beliefs and values of the
researcher. They will set the context for the research by defining
its boundaries, the methods used, and the “bias” of the outcome.
2 The methodological triangulation, which is based on the
combination of methods of inquiry derived from science, art,
and design.
3 The professional triangulation, which recognizes the fact that
architectural design is always client-oriented. Design by research
will therefore always have a practical dimension and integrate
basic research with its possible applications and its educational
dimension.
4 The triangulation of product level, process level, and problem
level. The intertwining of these levels is crucial to understanding
the research output. At the level of process, we look into the
mechanisms of the design activity itself, answering questions
such as: What are the thinking modes of an architectural
designer? How are decisions made, and who is making them?
Do general methodological patterns exist? How does the process
influence the outcome? At the product level, we deal with
research topics ranging from the analysis of one single building
to comparative building narratives, typologies, the oeuvre of
a particular architect, etc. On the problem level, we deal with
issues such as: Do general solutions exist for similar design
problems? We also consider the application of new materials,
social housing, sustainable architecture, systems integration, etc.
5 The triangulation of competences, which is based on the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the researcher. It is known
that architectural solutions are determined by the level of com-
petence of the architect, his likes and dislikes, his basic and
129
1.4.9
The Triangles of Architectural Research
Co
gle m
pe
rian ten
lT ce
iona s Tri
ss e At an
ofe tic tit gle
Knowledge
r ud
ac
Research
P P r es
Educ s
ation Skill
Cult ess
ural
Proc
Con
gle
textu
lem
Trian
Polit
Prob
al Tr
ical
al
Pr
ems
ric
od
sto
c
iang
Ar
tifi
uc
Syst
Hi
tis
ien
t
tic
le
Sc
Designerly
Methodological Triangle
1.4.10
The Triangulation of Architecture
Su
bje
ctiv
ns
ctio
eV
ent
Sem
Fun
alu
om
es
ant
gM
s/
/E
Ven
tas
ics
t
Fac
rin
xpe
mi
=C
ust
ctu
tive
rie
Fir
as
rea
e
tru
nce
enc
jec
Art
tive
=S
A
Ob
s/
nd
Sci
So
tics
Mo
Mi
For
ul
tac
me
ms
Syn
nt
Body
Design
Pragmatics = Communicative Moment
Utilitas
Contextual Solutions / Context
Design Sciences
experiential knowledge, and the way he is able to handle these in

a problem-solving way.
This triangulation (Fig.1.4.10) indicates the multilayered character of

research by design and the complexity of building a body of knowledge
in architecture. How can we integrate the results of that research into a
workable and general framework? How can we make them operational
within the context of concurrent architectural design, as explained above?
1 4.6
Architectural DNA and the

Building Genome
Further analysis of the concurrent model can give us more insight into the
variety and complexity of the information to be handled by the architect.
At the same time, it will provide us with a framework to structure disci-
plinary knowledge, resulting from both basic research and research by
design. To do this, I will introduce the notion of “knowledge pockets.”
A “knowledge pocket” is the place or database where specific specialized
and relevant information with regard to a specific or group of projects is
established and localized. “Knowledge pockets” are the data carriers which
describe the building at its several levels and in its different states through
time. They relate to the three main domains that define every architectural
designing-building problem.
These domains are:
1 The Functional Domain. This area contains all parameters,
encompassing all the criteria of use in the broadest sense,
related to the global functioning of the building. In that sense,
it refers to both the Vitruvian concepts of utilitas and firmitas.
The first points to the usefulness of the building for its users, the
second at the functioning of the building as a material artifact.
The building should stand up in a robust way and comply with
the laws of physics. The parameters of the functional domain
can be objectively described and are essentially quantifiable.
2 The Formal Domain. This area contains all parameters determin-
ing the aesthetics of the building. It relates to the manipulation
of masses, space, volume, materials, texture, colors, light, and
shadow. It relates to the Vitruvian notion of venustas, stipulating
132
that a building should be beautiful and generate aesthetic delight

for the user. The parameters of the formal domain are essentially
subjective and can only be described in qualitative terms.
3 The Contextual Domain. This area contains all the parameters
that constitute the environment in which the building will exist.
It refers to the complex of circumstances, objects, and conditions
— both in the physical and in the socio-cultural sense — that will
determine the outcome of the designing-building process and
act upon it when in use. It relates to the systemic character of the
design activity, as explained earlier. The parameters of the con-
textual domain are both subjective and objective and, therefore,
can be described by both quantifiable and qualitative statements.
The relation between “domains” and “knowledge pockets” forms the key to
a knowledge-based designing-building process. There is a striking analogy
with the way natural life functions and evolves via its hereditary material,
known as DNA.
DNA is a nucleic acid that contains all the genetic information and
instructions necessary to develop and maintain an operational natural
living system. The genes, being a discrete sequence of DNA, are data and
program carriers at the same time. They store not only information, but also
the instructions to be applied to that information. In that sense they form a
knowledge base for every living species.
Using the DNA metaphor, we can imagine a kind of artificial DNA:
a dynamic database, which contains not only the information useful for
the designing of a man-made artifact — a building — but also carries
the information needed for the construction and the use of that artifact.
In relation to the creation and construction of buildings, I will call it
“AR-DNA”, Architectural DNA, using the three-letter designation “DNA” in
a metaphorical sense (Fig.1.4.11A and 1.4.11B,C,D,F, E).
A particular sequence of AR-DNA can be called an “AR-gene”,
consisting of a series of “knowledge pockets” which are active in one or
more “domains.” The total collection of “AR-genes” that contains all
necessary information about a particular building is, using the same
analogy, a “building genome.”
Building knowledge in architecture is exactly about unraveling the
“building genomes” to analyze them, understand them, and make them
applicable.
If we want to understand how building genomes can contribute to

the emergence of an architectural discipline that is based on universal
knowledge and method, we need the appropriate tools to analyze and
133
1.4.11A
ABD: Architectural DNA
context function
form
function
form
context
function
form
context
function
form
context
compose these genomes. This requires insight into the composition of

the “AR-genes” and the “knowledge pockets” from which they are built.
It implies that we need to know the composition and content of these data
carriers: what relevant information they contain, how that information is
organized, how it interacts, and how it fits the three parameter domains.
A traditional ad hoc approach is in that respect no longer tenable.
Case study research, based on a robust methodology, seems to offer
such a tool.
In the second part of this book I shall examine case study research in general
by doing a comparative study investigating how case studies are used in
other disciplines, and from there develop a case study research methodology
for the architectural discipline. I shall do this by using the design theoretical
framework I developed in the first part.
135
1.4.11B
Combination of Knowledge Pockets into Architectural DNA
Context
Environment
Function
Brief
Design
Form
Technical Volume
Plans 3D
2D
Systems
Construction Build Sustainabiility
Materials
Occupy
Flexibility Perception
1.4.11C
The Briefing Knowledge Pocket
Mission Moral
Others Statements Standards
Budgets
Others
domain Societal,
Legislation of ethical Cultural and
beliefs and Human Beliefs
values
domain of
Technical and the formal
Functional Standards and the
normative
Safety and Town

Brief
Planning Regulation
domain
Living Models of the
functional
domain
Use Models of the
subjective
Others
Activity Models
Well-being Aesthetic Others

Sense
Physical and Sensory

Emotional State Perception
of the User
1.4.11D
The Designing Knowledge Pocket
Economical Legal Social and

Environment Environment Political
Others Engagement
Natural domain Organizational

of context Environment
Activities
Physical
Man-made
and Natural
Activities
Environment
Connection and domain of

function Design
Circulation Flows
Technological
Functions
Others domain
of form
Exterior Others
Architecture Interior Landscape
Architecture Architecture
1.4.11E
The Building Knowledge Pocket
Building Structural Completion

Technology Work Work
Electro- domain of Others

Mechanical construction
HVAC
Safety domain of
engineering Build
Medical
Others domain
of materials
Finishings Equipment Furniture
Texture Others
and Colors
1.4.11F
The Occupying Knowledge Pocket
Operating
Facilities Reuse Maintenance
domain of
sustainability
External
Expandability
Internal domain of
flexibility Occupy
Adaptability
Multi-Practicality
domain
of user
perception
Emotional Physical Functional

Part 2
Case Study
Research in
Architect ure
5
As our society becomes more conscious of its unity and inter-
dependence, and as tradition and novelty enter into a fruitful
marriage, we shall discover how to penetrate and to import
various kinds of knowledge in ever speedier and simpler ways.
The awareness today of the close parallel between the modes
of sensuous apprehension and the modes of the creative
process have begun to abridge many tedious processes.
Learning and creating are becoming very near to each other.
Just when it seemed that we had created an intolerable amount
of knowledge for future generations to preserve and diffuse,
we have discovered how to apprehend it swiftly from within.
Marshal McLuhan, 1911–1980,

Fragment 143–14, National Archives, Canada
Chapter 5
The Methodology of Case Study
Research
2 5.1
Making a Case: Investing in

Human Capital
It is generally acknowledged that the systematic use of case studies as a
tool for transferring knowledge in an educational setting was introduced at 1
Garvin, D., 2003,
the Harvard Law School not later than 1870. It was Christopher Langdell, “Making the Case:
the erstwhile dean, who radically changed the vision of legal education. Professional
Education for the
Regarding law as a science, he believed that general principles could be World of Practice”,
deduced from court decisions. He collected and analyzed representative sets in Harvard Magazine,
Vol. 106, Number 1,
of such decisions to produce the first legal casebook. In his “Making the Case. Cambridge,
Professional education for the world of practice” (2003) 1, David Garvin gives Massachusetts.
an interesting and compact analysis of the history and the use of case studies
at Harvard, pointing out that teaching by case studies may be the best way to
prepare students for the world of practice. But was what Langdell introduced
truly new and innovative?
5.1.1
What is a Case Study? Definitions, Strengths,
and Limitations
Building professional knowledge on the basis of practical cases has always
been an important method in domains where deductive reasoning and para-
digmatic thinking fail to explain certain phenomena or a complex set of
interrelated parameters. Especially in such domains as law and medicine,
where qualitative and/or ethical judgments often become more important
than quantitative ones, the case method has always been an important way
of developing theory. Over 2000 years ago in ancient Rome, Marcus Tullius
145
Case Study Research in Architecture
Cicero studied precedents of court decisions to use in his own law practice,
2 and the history of medicine shows ample evidence that theory and practice
Gerring, J., 2004,
“What Is a Case in ancient Egypt, Persia, and China were almost entirely based on case
Study and What descriptions.
Is It Good For?”,
in American Political This should not be surprising, as case studies describe and analyze how
Science Review, and why professionals have acted within a given situational context, made
Vol. 98, N° 2.
their decisions, and evaluated the outcome. Using case studies to under-
3
Putnam, H., 1995,
stand, explain and prescribe action builds on the experience of professional
Pragmatism: an colleagues and is an investment in human capital. It is “learning from doing”
Open Question,
Blackwell Publishers,
and enables us to integrate value judgment and critical thinking in a consis-
Oxford, England, tent scientific framework that builds professional knowledge.
and Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
From the above, it is clear that the true value of case research lies in its ability
4
Dewey, J., 1923, to build a consistent knowledge base in areas and domains that are primarily
Democracy and governed by hard-to-define and ambiguous parameters, where qualitative
Education, The
Macmillan Com- explanations often dominate the quantifiable, and where problems can only
pany, New York. be defined, understood and solved by taking their contextual and topological
aspects into account. Therefore it is not surprising that case study research
is a main instrument for building knowledge in the domains of medicine,
law, business administration, and social and political sciences.
However, a common definition of case studies does not exist, as each disci-
pline has its own purpose for case study research. To address this problem,
John Gerring, in “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For” (2004) 2,
proposes that a case study is “an intensive study of a singular unit for the
purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units, wherein a unit
connotes a spatially bounded phenomenon observed at a single point in
time or over some delimited period of time.” Ultimately, the usefulness of a
case is based on how it speaks to the understanding or resolution of other
cases within the same discipline. Case studies are developed on the premise
that intellectual capital requires an investment in the fundamental body of
knowledge for which members of the discipline and profession are uniquely
qualified and responsible.
Case study research is based on pragmatic thinking as defined by Hilary

Putnam in Pragmatism: an Open Question (1995) 3, where unity in learning and
experience, and in conceptual thought and situational consciousness, is
crucial. The pragmatist proceeds from the basic premise that the human
capacity for theorizing is integral to intelligent practice. Theory and practice
are not separate entities, but tools or maps for finding our way in the world.
As John Dewey put it in Democracy and Education (1923) 4, it is not a question
of theory versus practice, but rather of intelligent practice versus uninformed,
146
The Methodology of Case Study Research
stupid practice. Theory and experience have a symbiotic existence: just as

theory is abstracted from experience, it returns to inform it. 5
Yin, R.K., 2003,
Posing such questions as “how”, “why”, and “when” are successful Case Study Research:
tools in situations in which the researcher has no control over the events Design and Methods,
Sage Publications,
being researched, and where we deal with contextual parameters. In that Thousand Oaks,
sense Robert Yin, in Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2003) 5, dis- California.
tinguishes between explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive case studies.
He sees a case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contempo-
rary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. This is contrary
to a scientific experiment, where phenomena are consciously divorced from
their contextual environment in order to limit the variables under investiga-
tion and to control the situational setting of the experiment.
As Yin defines it, case study research is a comprehensive strategy of
a holistic character. It neither explains a phenomenon nor passes judgment
about the elements that comprise it, but it does provide insight into the
complex relationships and interconnections of these phenomena and
elements. By doing so, case-based research inscribes itself in the domain
of dynamic systems theory, where the relationships between the elements
prevail over the elements themselves, and are the determining factors of the
system’s behavior.
5.1.2
The Validity of Case-Based Knowledge
Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln’s 1981 study on evaluation 6, quoted by Peter
Jarvis in The Practitioner-Researcher (1999) 7, suggested that case studies have 6
Guba, E., and
serious disadvantages, such as oversimplification, exaggeration of the facts, Lincoln, Y., 1981,
and interpretation of selected facts. Therefore, they concluded that case Effective Evaluation:
Improving the
studies are unscientific, opportunistic, and unrepresentative. Usefulness of
These are serious objections, which require closer examination. The Evaluation Results
Through Responsive
problem can be found in the fact that Guba and Lincoln assumed paradigms and Naturalistic
of scientific research. In Part 1 of this book, I strongly argued that the Approaches, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco.
methods of scientific inquiry, artistic inquiry, and design inquiry differ
considerably. The quantifiability of the parameters under investigation and the 7
Jarvis, P., 1999,
degree to which the experimental environment can be controlled are crucial The Practitioner-
in this regard. Case studies are research instruments for situations where two Researcher, Jossey-
conditions are met: the parameters are mainly qualitative and subject to
change, and the context is outside the control of the researcher. Moreover,
as Jarvis pointed out, all reports are representations or interpretations of an
event or reality, and by their contextual nature, case studies will always be
partial or incomplete.
147
Therefore, it is not evident how we may derive general conclusions or

“objective” facts from case study research. That may be why, within scientific
circles, case study research is often regarded as a mediocre method of inves-
tigation and is widely considered to fall short of real academic standards.
However, if consistently applied in a methodologically rigorous way, it seems
to be the only way by which we can investigate highly complex systems and
understand their contextual laws and patterns in a changing environment.
Yin describes five general characteristics necessary for a case study to be a
lasting contribution to research:
1 The case study must be significant. It must be of general interest
to the profession and deal with important issues in either theory
or practice. At the same time, the case itself may be unusual,
exceptional, or critical.
2 The case study must be complete. This means that the bounda-
ries of the case are well described, and that both the phenomena
and the context are clearly defined. Moreover, there should be an
exhaustive effort by the researcher to collect all possible relevant
evidence.
3 The case study must consider alternative perspectives. This means
that the researcher should investigate rival propositions and
avoid personal bias. He should submit the results of the case
study to critical thinking.
4 The case study must display sufficient evidence. The evidence
should be presented in an objective way, so that the reader can
reach an independent judgment while being confident about the
methodology applied and the validity of the outcome.
5 The case study must be composed in an engaging manner. This
characteristic situates itself on the pragmatic level and is certainly
the least “scientific.” Regardless of the medium used, the output
should have a certain attractiveness and power to seduce. This
involves the researcher’s enthusiasm, talent, and experience and
familiarity with the medium.
Although Yin’s characteristics are related to case writing in the social

sciences, they are extremely relevant to other knowledge domains. As the
writing of a case must be subject to a consistent methodology, based on
fact-finding and experience and allowing for generalization and theory
building, its very design is crucial to the relevance of the output. This
implies the notion of a theoretical framework prior to the study of
the phenomena and their contexts. Robert Sutton and Barry Staw, in “What
148
Theory is Not.” (1995) 8, call this framework “a sufficient blueprint” for the
study, “a hypothetical story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts 8
Sutton, R., and
occur.” This will, according to Yin, guide the researcher in determining what Staw, B., 1995, “What
data to collect and the strategies for analyzing these data. Theory Is Not.”, in
Administrative Science
Quarterly, N° 40.
Literature on social research methodology commonly refers to four criteria
used to test the robustness of the research output. It seems that these criteria
may also be valid for assessing the overall quality of a case study.
Summarized, these four criteria are:
1 The construct of validity: establishing correct operational meas-
ures for the concepts being studied.
2 Internal validity: establishing a causal relationship, whereby
certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions.
3 External validity: establishing the domain to which a case’s output
may be generalized.
4 Reliability: demonstrating that the methods used in a case study
can be repeated with the same results.
The liability and validity of the results will depend, however, on the way the
methodology takes into consideration internal cohesion on the syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic levels. Only when this cohesion is assured can
the case study be said to have demonstrated reliability and internal and
external validity: “internal” meaning that the data fit the “truthness” of the
context; “external,” that the results may be extrapolated to similar situations.
Moreover, these conditions create a successful environment for communicat-
ing the case study results, raising them to the level of shared knowledge and
operational theory.
This conclusion leads to the necessity of a different kind of testing, before

we can engage in the four tests as proposed by Yin. This inquiry is on the
methodological meta-level. It asks three questions, related to the three levels
previously mentioned:
1 On the syntactic level: How technically accurate is the description
of the case study? Are the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of
method and medium used clear, coherent, and understandable
by all members of the profession?
2 On the semantic level: How well does the case study convey
its qualitative parameters? Is the methodology explained well
enough to be understood by all members of the profession?
149
3 On the pragmatic level: How effectively does the case study affect
the body of knowledge? How meaningful and relevant are the
results to the appropriate professional community?
Methodological meta-testing is a paramount condition for sharing knowledge

obtained through a case study with the broader professional community and
for making that knowledge useful for the advancement of that profession.
5.1.3
The Importance of Shared Knowledge
Professional practitioners tend to operate individually or in small teams.
9 Despite the fact that the differences among professionals may be subtle,
Lyotard, J.F., 1985,
The Post-Modern they rarely share their knowledge on a global scale, as do scientists, nor are
Condition, The Uni- they likely to submit their experience to extensive peer review. The archi-
versity of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, tecture profession in particular suffers from this phenomenon. Within such
Minnesota. a situation, it is difficult to build a common understanding of what best
10 practice should be, let alone to build the solid body of knowledge so necessary
Scheffler, I., 1965,
Conditions of Know-
to providing the profession with a much-needed scientific grounding.
ledge, University With respect to that, Jarvis (1999, see note 7 p. 147) points out that
of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
many practitioners undertake their own research as part of their professional
work. Unfortunately, this means that much of it does not get incorporated in
their profession’s body of knowledge. As in many professions, but especially
in architecture, most of the knowledge is generated and legitimatized prag-
matically instead of being logically derived from theory.
One of the problems related to the pragmatic approach is the valida-
tion of the results obtained, as all data seem to have an individual and relative
status. A clear, commonly accepted, and universal value system against
which we can verify the results is non-existent. In present society, knowledge
is increasingly legitimated by what it can accomplish, as argued by Jean-
François Lyotard in The Postmodern Condition (1985) 9. It is indeed typical in
the Postmodern condition that performance supersedes scientific grounding
and the consistency of legitimating findings.
In his Conditions of Knowledge (1965) 10, Israel Scheffler pointed out
that knowledge can be legitimated in at least three different ways: rationally,
empirically and pragmatically. Rationalist knowledge is obtained through
pure logical reasoning, mathematics being a good example. Rationalist
knowledge relies entirely on its own premises and arguments and from
that derives its legitimations. Empirical knowledge relies in essence upon
sensory experience. Validation is through the senses: I can see it, I can feel
it, I can hear it, I can smell it. Pragmatic knowledge emphasizes, according
150
to Scheffler, the experimental nature of certain forms of experience. It is a

practical form of knowledge, and it may not be possible therefore to gener-
alize it into a universal truth. It is precisely this kind of knowledge we are
dealing with in case studies.
Pragmatic knowledge is always contextual, and contextually bound know-

ledge is per se unique in place and time. It is derived at the same time from
observation, experience, and performance, where the position of the investi-
gator itself is part of that context. I have mentioned the importance of this
bi-perspectivism in the first part of this book, pointing to the isomorphic
principle linking the physical and social worlds in relation to the cognitive
mind. As we have seen, case studies try to deal with this aspect in a descriptive
and evaluative way. Their general starting point is “best practice”: how, in a
best practice situation, problems are handled, decisions made, and solutions
obtained. This is in particular the case for medicine, law, and business
administration. It implies that there should be a common agreement within
the profession about what constitutes best practice, in general terms and
within a given situation in particular. Such a framework of standards will
both rely upon and build upon knowledge shared among the members of
that profession.
Therefore, the study of a single case or series of cases can only be successful
if it acknowledges this agreed-upon framework. But if it does so, the study
may transcend that condition by sharing it with the professional community
and become validated in its own right. By sharing the results of case studies,
the profession itself accepts or refutes that knowledge, in a way analogous to
what happens to the results of a scientific experiment. But where, in a scien-
tific experiment, the facts are proven true in an objective and repeatable way,
case-based knowledge is proven in a subjective way based on a professional
consensus model. Through consensus, subjective data become accepted as
fact and in doing so, contribute to the construction of theory and the building
of a body of knowledge. This process stresses the importance of the meta-
testing as described above.
151
5.1.4
Practice-Based Theory Development
Our society is becoming increasingly technological and consequently know-
11 ledge-based. At the same time, it is in a constant state of change. Change
Jarvis, P., 1999,
The Practitioner- as the steady state of society necessitates a permanent actualization of
Researcher, Jossey- the several bodies of knowledge. This updating of knowledge can only be
research-based. In The Practitioner-Researcher (1999) 11, Peter Jarvis argued
12
Schön, D.A., 1987,
that if things change, society is forced to confront the outcomes of these
The Reflective Practi- changes and has to become reflexive. A society that incurs constant reexami-
tioner, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
nation becomes a learning society. How do the professions position them-
selves within such a changing environment?
I have argued extensively in the first part of this book that, as a result of the
Enlightenment and modernity, the professions are seeking a scientifically
grounded theory to legitimate their actions. And I have shown that by doing
so, they risk denying their own identity and the core essence of their mission.
The architecture profession is not immune from this tendency. It tends to
rely on knowledge borrowed from other disciplines, such as history, philos-
ophy, social sciences, and engineering to build its theoretical basis, rather
than trying to extract theory from its own knowledge. Although other profes-
sions, such as medicine, law, and business administration, have shown that it
can be done, architecture has as yet no tradition of building knowledge based
on practice. This is, in fact, bizarre, as architecture is the profession par
excellence, rooted in a long-lasting tradition of learning by doing.
In The Reflective Practitioner (1987) 12, Donald Schön rightly points out that
architecture uses practicums, commonly known as the design studios,
defining them as settings designated for the task of learning practice. He
argues that these studios should have a reflective dimension. The use of
the reflective practicum would provide a greater research orientation to that
practice, and it calls for a kind of research new to the profession. Schön calls
it “reflective research” and indicates four ways how practitioners can engage
in it:
1 Frame analysis: Practitioners should become aware of their
“mind-frames,” and, by doing so, become aware of alternatives
that in turn might lead to further reflection in action about their
own practice.
2 Repertoire-building research: This relates to the accumulation and
description of useful examples of reflection in action through the
use of case studies.
152
3 Research on fundamental methods of inquiry and overarching

theories: According to Schön, this research may occur in two
ways: first, by examining episodes of practice that may help
others entertain different ways of thinking; and second, by
action research, which is concerned with situations of unique-
ness, uncertainty, and instability.
4 Research on the process of reflection in action: When practition-
ers are able to understand their practice, they should be able to
restructure it.
If we elaborate further on Schön’s above-mentioned four ways of reflective

practice and raise it to the level of critical thinking, we come close to what
I have defined as research by design: the investigation of how things could
be, instead of how things are. This research is essentially practice-based, and
is the key to the development of theory that can be applied in a practical
design situation, laying the foundations for a body of knowledge adapted to
a changing world.
By learning through practical experience, practitioners take the
content of what they have been taught and what they acquire in practice and
try to build their own theory. This theory is essentially pragmatic, necessarily
dynamic, and relative to the practice situation. Case-based research is the
cornerstone of the reflective practice and the key to the development of
theory from practice, as it has the potential to transcend individual theories,
transforming them into generally accepted theoretical frameworks.
5.1.5
Case-Based Education
I have started this chapter by acknowledging the important role Harvard
University has played in this realm by having introduced case studies in the
curricula of the professional schools at the end of the 19th and throughout
the first half of the 20th century. Since then, the problem of educating pro-
fessionals at a research university has become increasingly subject to con-
troversy. Earlier in this book I have noted the growing alienation between
academia and the “real” world outside. This evolution imposes a consider-
able burden on open debate on the issue.
Two tendencies are in opposition. On the one hand, we have the “theorists,”
on the other hand, the “pragmatists.” The first group claims that all higher
education, including the training of professionals, should be based on
153
orthodox scientific research. Especially in architecture, this has led to schools

that have lost almost all contact with the reality of the design and building
practice. Their educational and research programs are based on knowledge
and methodologies acquired from other disciplines, which they then apply to
their own discipline. They deal with questions inside and outside of architec-
ture. On the contrary, pragmatists see the necessity of adding practice to the
curricula. They make a clear distinction between practice-based knowledge
and the relevance of “other” knowledge offered by related disciplines, and
they try to balance the two kinds.
Law and medical schools, with a much longer tradition of being part of
research universities, suffer much less from this dichotomy. They have
found a proper balance between theory and practice, and are aware of the
relevance of case-based research as a crucial contribution to the advance-
ment of their professions. Most of the architecture schools, on the contrary,
have only recently obtained university status, as they had traditionally been
rooted in the academies or colleges of fine arts, or had emerged at engineer-
ing schools, branching off from the civil engineering departments. That may
be the reason that many of these schools, looking for “scientific” status
and recognition by academia, belie their own nature. This has resulted in
a growing gap between the field’s professional and academic worlds. If we
still believe that the main aim of architectural education is to prepare the
students to enter the architectural profession, it is obvious that the aliena-
tion of theory from practice is counterproductive and ignores the essence of
architectural design.
In most architecture schools, curricula are still focused on a strict and

narrow interpretation of the design process. This process starts with a brief
(or program) and ends with a final design proposal. Architectural design
education in those cases is limited to teaching the students how to analyze
the brief, develop possible alternative solutions, evaluate those alternatives,
select a definite solution, and work toward a final proposal.
The reality of architectural practice is far more complex and is rooted
in a much broader model of the design process.
In architectural practice, the design process is not limited to the strict
design activity itself but includes acquiring the commission for the project by
participating in business initiatives, market positioning, convincing potential
clients, participating in competitions, developing and selling ideas, etc.
Moreover, the process does not end with the proposal of a final design
solution. The design proposal should also be buildable, as the client wants
not only drawings and a model, but a real building. This means that the
design process continues during the building process and that no strict
154
boundaries can be drawn between the design and building phase. Every
practicing architect knows that the building process affects the design and 13
Foqué, R.K.V.,
may considerably impact the end result. If we want to prepare our students 2001b, “Notes on
for an architectural design career in an office, we should try to give them an Re-integrating Theory
and Practice in Archi-
understanding of the complex mechanisms that govern the entire designing- tectural Education”,
building process. in Transactions on
Architectural Edu-
cation N°11, (Ed.
The question, however, is how to do this in a manner that produces N. Caglar), EAAE,
Leuven, Belgium.
added value both to education and practice. In an earlier analysis (2001) 13,
I commented on some problems that impede this integration. One should
not underestimate the intrinsic difference between education and practice.
They obey different laws and pursue different goals, which are not always
compatible. Architectural practice deals with real projects in real life.
The client is known, the brief is well-established, the building site exists,
and the regulations are beyond discussion. Budget, timing, and planning
are fixed and should be kept under control. Every commission has its well-
defined context, and the architect has to cope with the parameters inherent
therein. If he fails to do so, he may either lose the job or end up with a
mediocre result and an unsatisfied client.
A design studio project is done within a completely different setting,
as the primary goal is educational: to learn the knowledge and skills needed
in order to enter the profession with a reasonable chance of success. There
is no client, and most of the time no well-defined brief. The building site
is often arbitrarily chosen, if not imaginary, and the building regulations
imposed on the students, if any at all, are usually free of obligations and
subject to change. The student need not necessarily work within a strict
budget. The work schedule is entirely determined by the academic calendar.
The question, of course, is whether we should move to a more congruent

situation between practice and studio and, by doing so, try to simulate as
closely as possible the office environment in the design studio. There seem to
be arguments for and against such a move. It is obvious that putting students
in an office-like situation will considerably reduce the gap between theory
and practice. The students will be confronted with the typical constraints of
a real commission, and through that discover the tensions between a theo-
retical architectural discourse and implementing what they derive from it in
an actual design environment. To do this successfully, however, the students
need a frame of professional reference and a sufficient degree of maturity and
learning experience to fit their design activity into that frame of reference.
But this is exactly where problems arise. Faculties themselves are
increasingly insufficiently familiar with practice. As has been mentioned,
there is, unfortunately, a worldwide tendency in academia over the last
155
decades to change the academic stature of the faculty. This makes it almost
impossible, or at least very difficult, to combine a teaching position with
private practice.
This has a serious impact on the possibilities of the architectural
schools to attract experienced and recognized professionals.
Even more fundamental is the difference between learning to design and

learning to be able to design. The first should allow for the discovery of its
own creative boundaries, and for the gradual formation of a personal view
towards architecture. The second should start from the ability to optimize
creativity and architectural beliefs within the strict limitations of a real
design situation in order to create the best possible architectural solution.
This process takes time and cannot be compressed. The introduction of
practice-based learning is a delicate operation and calls for other methods
and teaching approaches.
The use of case studies is undoubtedly a promising way to accomplish this

— to bridge the gap between profession and academia and to prepare the
students to step into the reality of practice. It allows for the integration of
theory and practice and, concurrently, the introduction of moral values. The
confrontation of a pure “academic” situation with a “real professional” one
necessitates a never-ending questioning of architectural beliefs and values
before they become ideologies, and legitimizes the role of architectural
theory pur sang in architectural practice.
2 5.2
Case Study Research and

Case-Based Teaching Compared
From the above, it is clear that the best solutions to real world problems,
which are generally complex and multidisciplinary, cannot be derived
through mere application of current theories and/or methods. More and
more professionals are confronted with questions for which the answer
lies between disciplines and for which no clear-cut theoretical framework
accommodates a solution strategy. Moreover, “right” answers usually do not
exist, as every solution will be subject to debate among fellow members of
the profession.
156
This is especially the case in the so-called regulated professions, such as

medicine, law, architecture, engineering, and business administration. Each 14
Lynn, L.E., 1999,
of these professions carries serious liabilities and considerable responsi- Teaching & Learning
bilities. Consequently, the penalty for failure is high and carries significant With Cases, Chatham
House Publishers,
personal consequences. New York-London.
Case study research and case-based learning are extremely powerful tools to
train students and professionals to tackle problems that are pragmatically
demanding, based on creative and critical thinking, deliberating capacity, and
the ability to handle, within limited time frames, incomplete information and
fuzzy contexts. In Teaching & Learning With Cases (1999) 14, Lawrence Lynn
defines the use of cases as a method that is intended to further the develop-
ment of professional, intellectual, and behavioral skills; it is issue- and prob-
lem-oriented, and essentially concerned with the interpretation of real-world
experience. Two important aspects should be added to Lynn’s description.
First, the study of cases, when done in a rigorously methodological way, con-
tributes to the building of professional knowledge; and second, it provides
insight into how professional attitudes contribute to shaping solutions.
It is, therefore, obvious that the case method has become a major tool for
education and research in medicine, in law, and, most recently, in business
and public administration. These disciplines have built a considerable body
of knowledge that otherwise would have never existed. This knowledge has
raised them to an indisputably scientific and professional level. Surprisingly,
this is hardly the case in architecture, which still suffers from a strongly
individualistic approach, a lack of shared knowledge among members of
the profession, and consequently the absence of a consistent experiential
knowledge base. What can architecture learn from these other disciplines,
and how can it apply the case method to raise its own “scientific” status?
An initial examination shows that the use of case studies in other disci-
plines varies. The definition of a case study differs from discipline to dis-
cipline, as do the methods used, the contextual parameters, and the signifi-
cance accorded to the output. Comparative studies by Lynn (1999, see note
14 p. 157) and by Garvin (2003, see note 1 p. 145) provide useful insights
into these differences: the first through a practical discussion of how the
case method is used in law, medicine, and administration; the second by
providing a historical and scholarly view of the Harvard approach to case
study research and case-based learning in those disciplines. Both authors
stress the fact that regardless of the discipline, the primary aim is to learn
how the professional thinks and, accordingly, acts. Case-based education and
157
research are about getting familiar with thinking and acting like a lawyer,
thinking and acting like a clinician, thinking and acting like a manager.
In the following paragraphs, I will use both studies to elaborate on the
similarities and differences in case study research and case-based learning
in these three disciplines, and suggest ways in which these findings may
apply to the architectural profession.
5.2.1
Case Studies in Law
15 When Christopher Langdell introduced case-based learning at Harvard Law
Ginsburg, J.C.,
1996, Legal Methods:
School, he justified it by arguing that state laws might vary, but as long as
Cases and Materials, lawyers understood the principles on which they were based, they should be
Foundation Press,
Westbury, New York.
able to practice anywhere: “To have a mastery of these principles so as to be
able to apply them with consistent facility and certainty to the ever-tangled
16
Foqué, R.G.M.E., skein of human affairs, is what constitutes a true lawyer.”
2007, Personal
Communication,
Leuven, Belgium. Lynn defined a case in the legal field as a particular matter before a judge
and/or the written record of that matter and its disposition. In the common
practice of law today, case analysis and statutory interpretation are funda-
mental. According to Jane Ginsburg, in Legal Methods: Cases and Materials
(1996) 15, these skills involve techniques of close reading, analogizing,
distinguishing, positing related fact patterns, and criticizing judicial and
legislative exposition and logic. At the same time, Ginsburg avoided the
question of whether legal reasoning is based on inductive or deductive
methods. Is thinking like a lawyer “rule-based” or “case-based”? And if you
can think like a lawyer can you also act as a lawyer?
In a personal discussion with me (2007) 16, René Foqué compared
Benjamin Cardozo (1870–1938) and Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841–1935),
both judges at the U.S. Supreme Court, professors at the Harvard Law
School, and the most influential advocates of what is now called the School
of Legal Realism. For Cardozo, the common law did not work from pre-
established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived
deductively. Its method is inductive, and draws its generalizations from
particulars. Holmes argued that the whole outline of the law is the result
of a conflict at every point between logic and good sense: the first striving
to generate consistent results from a presumptive course of events; the
second restraining and at last overcoming that effort when the results
become too manifestly unjust. Moreover, he stated, “The life of the law has
not been logic, it has been experience.” I shall go on to address the differ-
ences between legal realism and legal formalism.
158
The legal realists oppose the dominance of syllogistic thinking, where facts
are subordinated to general rules, and plead for inductive reasoning, where 17
Foqué, R.G.M.E.,
the particular leads to the general. This process, argue the realists, has to do 1990, Instrumen-
with “fact skepticism” and “rule skepticism.” On the one hand, facts are not taliteit en Rechts-
bescherming, Kluwer,
unambiguous, but need to be contextualized to get to the “real” truth. On the Antwerp.
other hand, rules derive their legitimation, neither from their internal logic
Foqué, R.G.M.E.,
or syntax nor from their historical interpretation, but from their relation to 1998, “Global
the socio-cultural, economic and ethical norms of society today. The impact Governance and
the Rule of Law”
of a fact is not only dependent on societal context, but can only be relevant in International
within the perspective of the normative framework within which the society Law, Theory and
Practice, (Ed. K.
interprets that fact. In some of his writings (1990, 1998) 17 René Foqué Wellens), Kluwer
concluded that the narrative of facts in a case of law must always be consid- Law International,
Amsterdam.
ered alongside the narrative of the norms relevant to the case. This means
that the judge must always rely both on comparative case law and on fact 18
Edwards, L., 1996,
typology before he can qualify and subsume the facts. Moreover, the result Practical Case Analy-
is consequence-focused. It means that the legality of a court decision is co- sis, West Publishing,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
defined by its individual and societal effects, and by doing so it constitutes
policy-making.
This dispute between legal formalism and legal realism explains the impor-
tance of case studies in law. Legal case studies encompass rules of general
applicability, derived from an accumulation of prior decisions by judges in
particular matters. They are written records of matters and their dispositions,
in relation to their full contextual, environmental, and societal impact.
According to Linda Edwards, in Practical Case Analysis (1996) 18, the analysis
of legal case studies involves “the dissecting of courts’ reasoning, coming
to a conclusion regarding the status of the law, and applying that conclu-
sion to a current dispute.” It is, in essence, an individual creative process,
based on seeing connections and drawing interferences from them, applying
principles to specific fact patterns, and explaining this whole process in a
clear, concise manner to another. The conclusions may make sense to the
investigator, but others looking at the same set of conclusions may perceive
different patterns, derive different principles, leading to different conclu-
sions. In law, concepts tend to be complex and multi-layered. Although its
adherence to a formalized standard must be respected, legal writing itself is
often unclear and open to interpretation. As a result, argumentation and per-
suasion intended to convince the other parties involved are important factors
in a legal process.
Case-based teaching in law primarily uses the Socratic method, described by

David Garvin in “Making the Case. Professional Education for the World of
159
Practice” (2003) 19, as “an interrogatory style in which instructors question

19 students closely about the facts of the case, the points at issue, judicial
Garvin, D., 2003,
“Making the Case: reasoning, underlying doctrines and principles, and comparisons with other
Professional cases.” The aim is twofold: to lead the student through a process of logical
Education for the
World of Practice”, thinking with the intent of soliciting his opinions, ideas, and interpretations
in Harvard Magazine, about a case’s consistency and contextual validity; and to confront students
Vol. 106, Number 1,
Cambridge, with what may remain unknown, thus developing a degree of comfort with
Massachusetts. ambiguity.
There is a striking analogy between this process and the process of archi-
tectural design, in terms of both methodology and level of skills required.
Methodologically, we see a similar dichotomy between design formalism and
design realism. The first goes back to the Vitruvian tradition, where architec-
ture is based on a set of preconceived building elements and general rules
of scale, proportion, and harmony; the second is rooted in the Modernist
movement, which contextualized architecture as intrinsically bound to
societal values.
Both approaches appear in contemporary architecture. Computer-
generated architecture, where the architectural form is derived from a set
of algorithms and preset rules, is a typical example of the formal tradition.
Equally so is the case for most of the products of the so-called starchitecture,
where the design originates from the autarchic position of the designer, and
buildings are seen as icons of the designer’s personality, creating their own
environment instead of relating to a socio-cultural and physical environment
of which they are part. The school of New Urbanism that arose in the 1980s
is another example of the formalist approach, as it grounds its approach in a
particular interpretation of local historical traditions.
Intervention architecture, critical regionalism, and sustainable design are

examples of trends belonging to design realism. These approaches also
incorporate and advocate both fact- and rule-skepticism, acknowledging that
neither facts nor rules are unambiguous, but need to be contextualized and
interpreted.
Although the subject matter of legal and architectural design cases is quite
different, analysis by Edwards (1996, see note 18 p. 159) of the skills needed
for case-based research in law applies equally to both. These include the
ability to reason from the general to the specific and vice versa, to think
analogously, and to be able to explore and distinguish related fact patterns.
The application of formal inductive and deductive logic to the essential facts
of a case is crucial, as is the acceptance of ill-defined parameters, unknown
circumstances, and ambiguous interpretations of facts.
160
5.2.2
Case Studies in Medicine
A medical case is commonly defined as a patient with symptoms, requiring
diagnosis and treatment. A medical case study is the formal written record of 20
Barrows, H., and
a case, composed of a record of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Tamblyn, R., 1980,
Problem-Based
Learning: An Approach
Unlike the practice of law, medical practice has always recognized the to Medical Education,
importance of the individual and his environment. Medicine has everything Springer, New York.
to do with problem-solving, and each medical case is intrinsically unique, as 21

Jonsen, A.R., Siegler
it is linked with a particular patient in particular circumstances. A strategy M., and Winslade,
is demanded to improve the patient’s health in a given and limited time W.J., 1998, Clinical
Ethics: A Practical
frame. This involves both clinical experiences from previous analogous cases Approach to Ethical
and sufficient knowledge to quickly determine all hypotheses regarding the Decisions in Clinical
Medicine, McGraw-
patient’s problem within a framework of high moral standards. In medical Hill, New York.
practice knowledge, skills and attitudes are tightly interwoven and are the
bases for competent professional action.
From that perspective, thinking like a medical doctor is different from

thinking like a lawyer. In Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical
Education (1980) 20, Howard Barrows and Robin Tamblyn called it “the
clinical reasoning process.” Thinking like a clinician has less to do with the
analogical reasoning of lawyers, and is related more closely to science’s appli-
cation of the formal logic to a singular case. Through a systematic method of
inquiry, the physician has to come up with a collection of facts and use them
to make a diagnosis and determine the most adequate treatment options.
However, this clinical reasoning process must be embedded within its moral
context: Facts must be coupled with values and ethics.
In Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine

(1998) 21, Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade argued that every clinical case should
be analyzed on four levels:
1 Medical diagnosis: This refers to the diagnosis and treatment of
the patient’s condition.
2 Patient preferences: This refers to the will of the patient, based on
his own values, personal assessment of his condition, benefits,
and burdens. The questions to be raised are: What are the
patient’s goals? What does the patient want?
3 Quality of life: As the objective of all clinical encounters is to
restore, maintain or improve quality of life for the patient, the
161
question should be raised of how this quality should be under-

stood in the particular case.
4 Contextual features: This refers to the fact that every medical case
is embedded in a larger context beyond physician and patient; it
includes family, hospital policy, law, insurance, and so forth.
Medical case studies focus on the first level, that of medical diagnosis and
treatment. From the above, it is clear that this narrow view is no longer tenable.
Like legal realism, clinical realism takes into account all contextual variables
of a case. When these are acknowledged, thinking like a clinician becomes
more comprehensive, by focusing not only on knowledge and clinical skills
but also on interpersonal responsibilities, value-related attitudes, and socio-
cultural standards.
Another difference from legal cases is the time frame wherein the case
unfolds. In law, the time frame is determined by procedural rules and mutual
agreements between parties. In medicine, the time frame is set by the case
itself and is essentially beyond control of the parties involved. As a result,
the physician’s decision-making process depends on the evolving pathology
of the patient. It necessitates a combination of deductive logical inquiry and
heuristic strategy. Clinical case studies help to develop such skills. Their
interpretation echoes the ability to perceive initial cues from the patient and
the environment, to rapidly generate multiple hypotheses, to apply a strategy
of inquiry, to distinguish significant data from a large set of diverse data,
to relate empirically observed facts to an established body of knowledge,
and to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. Therefore, case studies in
medicine are problem-based rather than rule-based. A case study can help a
medical professional understand and solve a similar case, and by doing so
it adds to a growing body of clinical knowledge — whereas in law, each case
becomes a precedent with legal force and by doing so builds jurisprudence.
If we compare medicine and architecture in terms of case study research,

some interesting similarities and differences emerge. Where medicine
is essentially a problem-solving activity, architecture is both problem- and
rule-based. Architecture deals with factual and formal rules. The first are
objective and driven by legislation, scientific laws, and physical require-
ments; the second are subjective and driven by the client’s wishes, architec-
tural beliefs and theories, values, and aesthetics. As in medicine, each case is
different and contextually bound. The “clinical reasoning” process, however,
differs considerably from that of “architectural reasoning.” In architecture,
the process relies much more on intuitive and heuristic thinking than on
formal, logical thinking. To a great extent, architectural problems are defined
162
by unquantifiable parameters and cannot be solved by pure science-based

deductive reasoning, as in medicine; neither is the outcome of the problem-
solving activity well defined and clear, as it is in medicine, where the healing
of the patient is unambiguous and objectively measurable. The result of an
architectural design process is not only unique, but exists as one possibility
among others.
Architectural competitions are a good example. Although the problem
and context are the same for all participating architects, each competitor
will produce a different response. To compare them, let alone rank them,
is difficult and in some ways arbitrary. It depends not only on the particu-
lar set of criteria, but also on the interpretation of these criteria by the
jury. Architectural cases are, at the same time, characterized by a variety
of problem descriptions and the possibility of a wide range of “satisfying”
solutions. There is not one “good” solution, but a multitude of possible
ones. Where medical reasoning is science-based, architectural reasoning is
primarily based on values.
5.2.3
Case Studies in Business Administration
The definition of a case in business administration is less straightfor-
ward than those for law or medicine, where cases occur in a “natural” way 22
Gragg, C.I., 1954,
during professional practice and are externally driven, such as an accusa- “Because Wisdom
tion of an illegal act or the emergence of an illness. In business adminis- Can’t Be Told”, in
The Case Method at
tration, few cases originate naturally, but are generally constructed by the the Harvard Business
players involved and are, as such, internally driven. Consequently, they can School, (Ed. McNair,
M., and Hirsum, A.),
be studied on a wide variety of forms and levels. In “Because Wisdom Can’t McGraw-Hill,
Be Told” (1954) 22, Charles Gragg stated that a case in business administra- New York.
tion should deal with an actual problem, and he defines a case as a record
of a business issue which has been faced by business executives, along with
surrounding facts, opinions, and prejudices.
Business cases are problem-generated and problem-driven. They rely

less on scientific knowledge than on tacit knowledge and experience, the
objective being to connect that knowledge to a favorable outcome. The case
emerges through the initiative of a particular party or parties, for instance:
two companies want to merge or a company wants to improve its internal
structure. Although the case evolves in a real world context, it is also strongly
influenced by the parties involved. There is a strong analogy to contem-
porary gaming situations, wherein each player tries to optimize his gains
within a limited set of common set rules, incomplete knowledge, ambiguous
163
information, and hazardous interventions. Incontestable answers do not

exist, as each decision may change the problem parameters. More so than in
other disciplines, business cases are characterized by goal finding in action,
and therefore they are heuristic and teleological.
Business cases differ from those of law and medicine, as Lynn (1999,
see note 14 p. 157) stated, in the absence of a well-defined professional
knowledge base and of formal, logical processes for its application. As a
consequence, virtually their entire body of knowledge is borrowed from
other disciplines, such as economic, behavioral, and social sciences.
Leadership, organizational acumen, and the ability to plan, persuade, and
make decisions under pressure, are important characteristics of a successful
manager.
Thinking like a manager, therefore, involves a more experiential
and associative way of thinking, based on intuition and a combination of
analytical and synthetic reasoning with diagnostic and persuasive skills.
Garvin (2003, see note 19 p. 160) describes this thinking as an activity that
regularly has to size up ambiguous situations — emerging technologies,
nascent markets, and complex investments — and to make hard choices,
often under pressure, since delay means loss of competitive edge. Managers
work collaboratively, since critical decisions usually involve input from
diverse groups and departments. However, in the end, they have to make
their own decisions, and assume the responsibility for them.
In business cases, the questions to be answered may appear at first glance

obvious — sometimes trivial. The essence of the case study, however, is how
these questions are answered and what underlying process led to a particular
solution. The reconstruction of discourse among the parties involved is just
as important a part in understanding the solution as is an understanding
of the problem itself. Interpersonal dynamics, personal likes and dislikes,
accidental circumstances, and first impressions are the uncontrollable
parameters jointly determining the case’s outcome.
Both in medicine and in business administration, cases are based on
decision-making processes. But where in medicine these are based on clear,
logical thinking, underpinned by a scientific knowledge base, in business
administration decision-making is a process in action, whereby inductive
reasoning, intuition, and experience are the driving forces. Flexible, critical,
fast thinking is essential for success. The aim of case research in business
administration is to reconstruct and draw the decision map, and evaluate
its logic and coherence, rather than to point to a particular road followed.
The study should develop a way of understanding two things: how a solution
was found, and how it solved the problem.
164
This focus on how a solution developed is especially relevant for architecture.

Just as in business administration, there is no unique answer to an archi-
tectural problem, so it is just as important to understand how and why a
solution came into being as it is to analyze the solution itself. And as in
business, the decision-making process is also a process in action. But,
whereas in business administration the dynamic of the action is driven by
an external dialectic between the actors involved, in architecture it is mainly
driven by an internal dialectic within the architect’s mind.
There are also major similarities between the architect’s way of
thinking and that of the manager. Both are characterized by a strong com-
bination of analytical and synthetic components, associative and innovative
power, and the capacity to come to conclusions in the face of uncertainty.
Therefore, it may be more apropos to speak of such processes as decision-
forcing than as decision-making. The knowledge obtained in action is an
important factor in this process, as it allows for coping with chaotic situa-
tions and will benefit performance in a “similar” future situation.
5.2.4
Case Studies Methodologically Compared
Although there is common ground for case study research in the profes-
sional disciplines, the analysis above shows that case study research in law,
medicine, and business administration differs considerably not only in
content but also in methodology. Thinking like a lawyer, like a physician, or
like a manager involves different skills and attitudes.
The closer analysis that follows illuminates these differences in greater
detail. I will examine them on the basis of nine parameters: basic character-
istics, field of tension in which the discipline operates, modes of thinking,
the reasoning process used, the context, the methodology, the knowledge
base, the time frame, and the case study output. By doing so, we can group
the differences on three levels, grouped by main characteristics: fields
of tension, modes of thinking, and underlying reasoning process; method-
ological approach, time frame, and output; and validity testing in relation
to the case study characteristics.
Fig. 2.5.1 gives an overview of these similarities and differences.
165
2.5.1
Law / Medicine / Business Administration Compared
Law Medicine Business

Administration
character- • Rule Based • Problem Based • Process Based

istics • Conclusion Driven • Result Driven • Solution Driven
fields of • Legal Formalism vs. • Clinical Purism vs. • Managerial Objectivism

tension Legal Realism Clinical Realism vs. Managerial
• Norm vs. Fact • Knowledge vs. Fact Pragmatism
• Fact vs. Application
thinking • Deductive vs. Inductive • Deductive and Inductive • Inductive and Intuitive
modes • Formal vs. Analogical • Pragmatic • Pragmatic
• Autarchic vs. Contextual • Contextual • Contextual
reasoning • Logical • Scientific and Associative • Associative and

process • Analysis and • Analysis and Evaluation Teleological
Interpretation • Rational and Empirical • Analysis and Synthesis
• Normative and Rational • Pattern Finding • Empirical and Heuristic
• Pattern Finding • Pattern Finding
and Creating
context • Output Defining • Input Defining • Input and Output

Defining
method- • Socratic Dialectic • Positivist • Rhetoric and Heuristic

ology • Case Defining • Problem Finding • Problem Generating
• Rule Testing and Solving and Solving
• Scientific Inquiry • Scientific and Design
Inquiry
knowledge • Formal Body of Rules • Scientific Theories • Experiential Knowledge

base • Precedents • Experiential Knowledge • Examples
time frame • Externally Controlled • Beyond Control • Internally Controlled
case study • Building Jurisprudence • Building Scientific • Building Experiential

output Knowledge Knowledge
• Best Practice by • Successful Practice by
Objective Results Subjective Results
5.2.4.1 Fields of Tension, Modes of Thinking, and Underlying

Reasoning Processes
A case in law is rule-based and conclusion-driven, and the difference in

approach between legal formalists and legal realists identifies a field of tension
between norms and facts. In the formalist approach, facts are subordinated
to the rules, which constitute a body of universal truth. Consequently, con-
clusions are arrived at through deductive thinking, respecting the autarchic
position of the law-maker. The legal realist school, on the contrary, takes
a relative position, contextualizing norms and facts. The relation between
them needs to be interpreted case by case. Conclusions are arrived at through
inductive and analogical thinking based on experience and context. Context
is an important factor in determining the output of the case.
A case in medicine is problem-based and result-driven. As in law, we can

distinguish two approaches: clinical purism and clinical realism. In clinical
medicine, this difference defines a field of tension between knowledge and
facts. Although the difference is less vocalized, as both schools recognize
the importance of contextual influences and pragmatic thinking, the purist
approach sets scientific knowledge above the diagnosed facts, using deductive
thinking to find a problem solution, whereas the clinical realists will rely
more heavily on inductive thinking — contraposing, balancing, and inter-
preting facts and knowledge. Where in law the context is output-defining, in
a clinical case the context is basically input-defining.
A case in business administration is process-based and solution-driven, thus

differs substantially from cases in law and medicine. A case here evolves
through the actions and reactions of the parties involved, and is therefore
engaged in a field of tension between facts and application. In this sense, we
can speak about managerial objectivism and managerial pragmatism. The
first, also known as the contingency theory, asserts that when managers make
a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current situation
and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at hand. Basically, they
are dealing with the facts prima facie, believing that the outcome depends on
it. Managerial pragmatism, on the other hand, is systems-oriented and deals
with the facts in an interactive way within a constantly changing context.
It involves a complex mode of inductive and creative thinking, relying on
intuition and critical thinking at the same time. A managerial case is
always contextual and multi-layered, where the context is both input- and
output-defining.
167
From the above, it becomes obvious that the reasoning processes underlying
case studies in law, medicine, and business administration have different
emphases and differ in certain other aspects. In law, the reasoning process is
essentially logical, based on analysis and contextual interpretation by using
norms and rules. The essence is pattern-finding by a normative and rational
process in order to come to a norm-fitting conclusion.
In medicine, the reasoning process is both scientific and associative,
based on analysis and evaluation. As in law, pattern-finding is essential, but
in medicine it relies on rational deduction and empirical induction at the
same time. The aim is a satisfying result that can be measured objectively.
In business administration, the underlying reasoning is multilayered
and complex, at times involving both rational and intuitive thinking. It is
based on an iterative process of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. It deals
not only with pattern-finding, but also with pattern-creating. Therefore it
has a heuristic and teleological character, whereby experience, empathy, and
communicational skills are important driving forces. The result aims at a sat-
isfying solution, which is acceptable for the parties involved, serves the goals
of the organization, and can only be evaluated in a subjective and contextual
way.
5.2.4.2 Methodological Approach, Time Frame, and Case Sudy

Output
As a legal case is rule-based, it is essential to define the problem as precisely

as possible in order to efficiently confront the case with the rule. The method-
ology used is defined by rule-testing and is based on the Socratic dialectic
method. It refers to and builds on a knowledge base generated out of a set
of formal rules and precedents. The time frame in which a case evolves is
determined by external and well-defined factors, laid down in procedural
rules. The outcome of the case study results in jurisprudence, which adds to
the existing body of knowledge.
In medicine, the methodology operates on the level of problem-finding and

problem-solving by applying the methods of scientific inquiry in a well-
controlled environment. The knowledge base is formed by a combination
of scientific theory, experiential facts, and proven results. The time frame
is driven by uncontrollable external factors. The case study outcome in
medicine builds new scientific evidence, which leads to new generally
applicable treatments, thus extending the body of knowledge on a scientific
level. It defines best practice on the basis of objective results.
168
Cases in business administration deal with problem-generating and problem-

solving at the same time. The methodology uses both the methods of scien-
tific inquiry and design inquiry. The knowledge base most commonly drawn
from is experiential, relying on examples and precedents. There is hardly
one single theory behind it, but rather borrowed knowledge from other dis-
ciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology, and communication and
information technology. The time frame is partly externally determined
but essentially internally controlled. The case study outcome in managerial
cases generates experiential knowledge, which builds a pragmatic body of
knowledge, defining successful practice in a subjective way.
5.2.4.3 Validity Testing and Case Study Characteristics
As we have seen, testing the validity of a case study should be done on three
levels: the syntactic level, dealing with the vocabulary, structure, and syntax
of the method and techniques; the semantic level, dealing with meaning and
interpretation; and the pragmatic level, dealing with the effectiveness with
which the case study contributes to the body of disciplinary knowledge.
Fig.2.5.2 gives an overview of the main parameters to be tested on the
three levels in the disciplines of law, medicine, and business administration.
They logically follow from the comparative analysis above.
169
2.5.2
Law / Medicine / Business Administration Levels
Law Medicine Business

Administration
syntactic • Formal Correctness • Scientific Correctness • Situational Clarity

level • Logical Pattern • Logical Pattern • Logical and Intuitive
Coherence Coherence Pattern Coherence
• Symmetry of • Asymmetry of • Symmetry/Asymmetry
Vocabulary Vocabulary of Vocabulary
semantic • Interpretive Quality • Interpretive Quality • Interpretive Quality

level • Interference Dialogue • Pattern Recognition • Pattern Recognition
• Context Clarification Intensity Understanding
• Context Interpretation • Context Interpretation
pragmatic • Argumentation Quality • Scientific Application • Argumentation Quality

level • Persuasive Power Quality • Persuasive Power
• Contextualizing Power • Clinical Effectiveness • Contextualizing Power
• Contextualizing Power
2 5.3
Case Study Research in

Architecture
Business, law, and medical schools and their related professions exhibit
examples of highly successful case-based education and research programs
that have fundamentally changed these disciplines and raised them to an
indisputable scientific and professional level. Through case study research,
they have developed a consistent body of experiential knowledge, which has
led to a solid scientific basis and academic recognition. Business adminis-
tration is maybe the most striking example of such a discipline. When it
emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, it lacked its own body of know-
ledge, let alone scientific grounding. The intensive and consistent develop-
ment of case study research has raised it in a short time to a well-respected
academic discipline and a showpiece for many universities.
5.3.1
The Loss of Comprehensive Knowledge in
Architecture
Architecture, however, although recognized as one of the oldest professions,
has still not succeeded in establishing its own body of knowledge — or 23
Vitruvius, M., around
rather, has lost the ability to do. From antiquity through the beginning of the 30 BC, De Architectura
20th century, the discipline of architecture was par excellence the center of a Libri Decem, trans-
lated by Morgan, M.,
consistent and coherent body of knowledge that bridged the gap between the 1941, The Ten Books
exact sciences and their applications, between technical constructions and on Architecture,
Harvard University
aesthetic perception; it represented an integrated model of science and art. Press, Cambridge,
The Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius, written in the first century Massachusetts.
B.C. 23, constitute the earliest known example of a comprehensive treatise on

architectural knowledge in the Western World.
The great architects of the Renaissance and the Baroque built
on Vitruvius’s legacy, expanding that body of knowledge. In 1452, Leon
Battista Alberti (1404–1472)wrote his influential work on architecture
De Re Aedificatoria, which by the 18th century had been translated into Italian,
French, Spanish, and English. Around 1480, Francesco di Giorgio Martini
(1439-1501), the famous painter, sculptor, and architect from Siena, wrote his
Trattato di Architettura (Treatise on Architecture). One of the milestones of
architectural theory of the Italian Renaissance, it describes the state of the
art of both civil and military architecture. Leonardo da Vinci studied it
171
intensively, as evidenced by the fact that the manuscript was found in

24 Leonardo’s library, annotated with his comments, notes, and sketches. In 1570
Tschumi, B., 1995,
“One, Two, Three: Andrea Palladio (1508–1580) published his I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura
Jump”, in Educating (The Four Books of Architecture) . His book defines systematic rules and
Architects, (Ed.
Pearce, M. and plans for buildings, derived from precedents and case studies. He distin-
Toy, M.), Academy guishes two types of general rules: design rules, related to form and based on
Editions, London.
aesthetic appearance; and construction rules, based on the logic of building
technology.
We must not forget that during the Middle Ages, although no important
written material is known, the cathedral builders in the lodges created their
own knowledge base, which was used for centuries as the underlying theo-
retical framework for Gothic architecture. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879),
famous for his restorations of Medieval buildings, brought that knowledge to
the foreground in the 19th century. Through examining cases, making notes
and drawings, he studied Romanesque, Gothic, and Renaissance buildings.
He did not limit himself to the architectural aspects, but extended his studies
to furniture and ornament. This breadth of study resulted in an impressive
architectural knowledge base, published in several books: the two most influ-
ential being Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVe siècle
(Dictionary of French Architecture from the 11th to the 15th Century) and
Entretiens sur l’architecture (Discourses on Architecture).
Many Neoclassical architects studied the projects and buildings of
Etienne-Louis Boullée (1728–1799) and Claude Ledoux (1736–1806) and used
them as references for their own designs.
For more than 2000 years, the discipline of architecture built a growing,
comprehensive, and professionally recognized body of knowledge. How did
we lose that tradition? Why did we stop building on this legacy?
There are many reasons, including growing emphases on variety
and uniqueness and the increasingly autarchic and individualist attitude
of the architect himself, as explained in the first part of this book. But the
Modernist movement certainly played a decisive role in this, as well. By con-
sidering architecture as a means of creating a new world, it conferred a lot
of emphasis on the socio-political role of architecture, and in the process the
architect became an agent of social change, somebody with a mission. This
vision gave rise to the architect as an individual whose design activity should
be driven by innovation and creation of novelty, leaving no room for tradition
or interest in studying what came before.
In a discussion of the changes in architectural education, Bernard Tschumi

(1995) 24, highlighted three great shifts, which are also relevant to the discus-
sion above. Tschumi situated a first split in the 17th century, with the creation
172
of the first school of architecture, the Académie Royale d’Architecture in

Paris. From that moment on, the architect no longer learned at the construc- 25
Allen, E., 2008,
tion site, but at school. A second split occurred in the 20th century, with new “How to Make
methods of construction developed by the building industry. As a result, the Technical Courses
More Relevant”,
architect lost control of the building process. Finally, as a fall-out of the 1968 in Design Intelligence
happenings, theoretical concepts became more important than practical real- 2008, Greenway
Communications,
izations. This led to a kind of theoretical practice, which forgoes building Norcross, Georgia.
for publishing, and gave rise to the starchitects, who do a well-published
sketch design, which is then made buildable by an anonymous job architect.
The latter illustrates how far the architect has moved away from his core
business: “building.”
The growing impact of ITC technology on the designing and building
process, at an unprecedented speed, adds yet another dimension to this
dramatic shift in the profession.
Now, more than ever, we are witnessing a nearly schizophrenic situation

in most architecture schools around the world. Theory and design practice
are dissociated, they develop their own content along different lines, and
faculty communicate little with each other about what they are teaching and
how one area could enhance the other. Although architecture schools still
teach architectural knowledge, it is split up into specialized packages, such
as architectural history, architectural theory, construction methods, material
science, building systems, etc. Hardly any attempt is made to integrate them:
to teach students to see the connections and the impact on design decisions
by studying real cases and bringing that integrated knowledge to the design
studio.
In a razor-sharp analysis, Edward Allen (2008) 25, points out how
important the skill of detailing is for architects, but concludes that few archi-
tecture schools teach this in an organized way. Detailing is, quintessen-
tially, the activity of integrating building technology, historical knowledge,
and practical experience in a design work that is buildable. This should be
the core business of the architect, but it seems no longer to be a valuable
subject in the curricula. This dearth exemplifies the contemporary view that
architecture is about concepts and not about buildings, that architects should
produce ideas rather than dealing with how these ideas can be realized. This
view represents the “softwarization” of architecture, the essential purpose of
which is to produce hardware, in the form of buildable buildings.
Although the study of precedents appears in most architectural curricula,

it does not lead to the creation of a body of knowledge as it does in medicine,
law, or business administration. Barry Russell, discussing the use of precedent
173
studies in architectural education in “Paradigms Lost: Paradigms Regained”

26 (1995) 26, mentioned that the reason for this is that thorough knowledge was
Russell, B., 1995,
“Paradigms said to destroy the creativity in the student, who should pursue innovation
Lost: Paradigms at all times, and therefore the notion of a teachable body of knowledge
Regained”, in
Educating Archi- became explicitly ignored. Furthermore, we have seen above that the
tects, (Eds. Pearce, Modernist tradition in architecture introduced the belief that originality
M., and Toy, M.),
Academy Editions, is essential for “good” architecture. This latter development may be an even
London. stronger explanation for why the architectural profession has for so long
been averse to shared knowledge.
5.3.2
Building a Framework for Architectural Case
Study Research
Architecture is no longer considered to be a true discipline, based on a com-
prehensive knowledge base, as it was for more than 2000 years.
It is clear that this situation is no longer tenable, if architecture wants
to survive in the information age, and in a quickly changing globalized world.
A key question regarding the discipline of architecture today is how we can
build a store of knowledge again.
A fundamental paradigm shift on the levels of architectural education,

entrance to the profession, and the profession itself is needed to achieve the
same status as disciplines such as law, medicine, and business administra-
tion. This demands a cultural shift from individual approaches to shared
knowledge, integration of education and practice, reconsidering the intern-
ship process, and establishing a research and development strategy between
the academic and professional worlds. Building knowledge in architecture
will concurrently establish the “scientific” status of architecture.
As in the other disciplines, case studies can be used to establish a knowledge

base for both the discipline and profession of architecture. Case study
research can contribute to the elaboration of architectural design theory.
This conclusion is based on the assumption that the results of case study
research can provide a solid and general framework, wherein a consistent
body of knowledge about architectural design processes can be generated.
This will allow for deeper insight into the complex relationships between
context, product, and process that govern every design process, as well as the
interactions of the participants involved.
Insights acquired from case study will offer a better understand-
ing of individual design methodologies both in academic and professional
174
environments, thus enabling the architect to constantly improve his or

her capabilities, resulting in “better” products. If, at the same time, this 27
Putnam, H., 1995,
learning process could be based on a common and repeatable method of Pragmatism: an
case study research, we will have taken a first step towards establishing a Open Question,
Blackwell Publishers,
general design theory based on pragmatic thinking, where, as defined by Oxford, England,
Hilary Putnam, in Pragmatism: an Open Question (1995) 27, the unifying of and Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
the processes and experience, and of conceptual thought and situational
28
consciousness, is crucial. Kuhn, T., 1970, The
Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, The
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970) 28, Thomas Kuhn argued that University of Chicago
shared examples provide models from which spring particular coherent Press, Chicago.
traditions of consistent knowledge of what he defines as “normal science.”
This is the body of accepted theory, illustrated with successful applications,
and compared with exemplary observations and experiments. He referred
to these as “paradigms”. Shared paradigms make it possible for scientists
to commit to the same rules and standards for their practice. By analogy,
building architectural knowledge is providing for shared paradigms.
Case study research will produce the necessary information, the building
blocks for these paradigms.
In Part 1 of this book, I described design activity as consisting not only of

exploration and analysis of the existing environment, but at the same time
the structuring and shaping of that environment. I argued that this definition
is unique compared to the fundamental scientific approach and the manner
in which art addresses the physical world. Comparing the methodologies
of science and design, it is important to ask what they have in common
and what their differences are. What are the essential characteristics of
traditional scientific research and of research by design?
This may seem a purely academic and intellectual question. but we
should be aware of the importance of explicitly defining our own research
criteria related to our core expertise, “architectural design,” thus delineating
the “scientific status” of design in general and enabling the generation of a
knowledge center unique to the discipline and profession of architecture.
The design process can indeed be defined as a structuring activity. The

essence lies in deciding which elements constitute the design context and
which structural patterns determine its cohesion. Such design activities
are based on a permanent process of information transformation through
the use of models. Information from the existing environment, defined as
the design context, can be translated into mental models, which in turn are
converted into formal models to describe a design hypothesis that can be
contextually tested. The uniqueness of the designing and building process,
175
as described in Part 1 of this book further defines the complexity of a case.

Therefore, case study research should be done on various intertwined levels:
the level of possible hypotheses, the level of factual and desired outcomes,
the level of methodology, and the level of context.
The hypothesis level refers to possible solutions for a particular
design problem. It implies analysis of the design brief, problem formulation,
expectations of the client, and various design propositions by the architect(s).
The outcome level compares the selected design proposals as built and as
intended, the building techniques, and materials used. On the methodological
and contextual levels, analysis is made of the design methods used, the under-
lying decision-making process, the several participants, and the overall con-
text, both physical and non-physical, in which the design process took place.
5.3.3
The Characteristics of Architectural Knowledge
and Architectural Thinking
In architectural education, there has always been discussion of whether it
29 should focus on a generalist or specialist approach, and of how the curricu-
ENHSA, 2007, Profile
of the Graduates lum can keep up with the demands for more specialized graduates, who can
from European Schools perform sooner and more effectively once they enter the office. A survey
of Architecture: an
Inquiry on the Compe- carried out in 2007 by the ENHSA (European Network of Heads of Schools of
tences and Learning Architecture) 29, reveals that there is a considerable difference between what
Outcomes, EAAE-
internal document, academia thinks should be the competences of students graduating from an
Leuven, Belgium. architectural school in Europe, and what competences the profession expects
the young graduates to have. Highly prized, by professionals, for instance,
is the ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and
technical requirements. But that is not even on the radar screen of the educa-
tionalists. An even more striking outcome of this survey is that the profession
believes that the competences they consider very important are not present
in new graduates, particularly the ability to meet requirements within the
constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations and the ability
to apply knowledge to practice. That last competence, however, is considered
important by both academia and the profession. This indicates a serious
difference of opinion between school and practice regarding the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes needed to be a competent architect.
It is clear that architecture is interdisciplinary by nature, but a fruitful and

meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration assumes three important pre-
conditions: a clear understanding of one’s own expert knowledge; an under-
standing of and respect for the expert knowledge of the other relevant
176
disciplines; and the ability to mutually communicate this knowledge.

Consequently, the key question is to define the essence and characteristics
of architectural knowledge. The analyses in Part 1 of this book have already
explained these characteristics. They can be summarized in seven points.
1 Architectural knowledge is both multidisciplinary and multi-
layered. There is a layer of knowing, involving an acquaintance
with knowledge belonging to different bodies of scientific disci-
plines, ranging from the natural sciences to the socio-cultural
sciences and everything in between. There is the layer of inte-
grated application of these different sets of knowledge, and the
layer of interpretation of how to apply the knowledge in a design
situation.
2 Architectural knowledge is contextual. Architectural knowledge
derives its relevance from the specific physical, environmental,
historical, socio-cultural, and economic environment in which
it is applied. Architectural knowledge becomes meaningful only
when put into context.
3 Architectural knowledge is value-sensitive. Underlying individual
and societal value systems, including ethics, determine the degree
of importance of particular knowledge pockets. Boundaries must
be set, within which architectural knowledge is applied, and
choices must be made of what knowledge is relevant and what
is to be discarded. Individual attitudes, likes, and dislikes jointly
determine the relative importance of the elements that constitute
the body of knowledge.
4 Architectural knowledge is meta-knowledge. It relates to the
problem level, the process level, and the product level. This
means that architectural knowledge offers insights into how
to formulate an architectural problem, how to conceptualize
possible solutions, how to realize that solution through physical
building, and providing the means to do that.
5 Architectural knowledge is systemic. This means that it can
describe not only the elements of an architectural product but
also the relationships among these elements and how a combin-
ation of them can create additional value and synergy.
6 Architectural knowledge is bipolar. It is subject to internal
reflection and external validation. This means that architectural
knowledge is not universal, but subject to constant individual
interpretation, alternating between analytical exploration and
synthetic problem-solving.
177
2.5.3
Law / Medicine / Business Administration /Architecture Compared
Law Medicine
characteristics • Rule Based • Problem Based

• Conclusion Driven • Result Driven
fields of • Legal Formalism vs. Legal Realism • Clinical Purism vs. Clinical Realism
tension • Norm vs. Fact • Knowledge vs. Fact
thinking • Deductive vs. Inductive • Deductive and Inductive

modes • Formal vs. Analogical • Pragmatic
• Autarchic vs. Contextual • Contextual
reasoning • Logical • Scientific and Associative

process • Analysis and Interpretation • Analysis and Evaluation
• Normative and Rational • Rational and Empirical
• Pattern Finding • Pattern Finding
context • Output Defining • Input Defining
methodology • Socratic Dialectic • Positivist

• Case Defining • Problem Finding and Solving
• Rule Testing • Scientific Inquiry
knowledge • Formal Body of Rules • Scientific Theories

base • Precedents • Experiential Knowledge
time frame • Externally Controlled • Beyond Control
case study • Building Jurisprudence • Building Scientific Knowledge

output • Best Practice by Objective Results
Business Architecture
Administration
• Process Based • Rule based

• Solution Driven • Problem based
• Process based
• Solution driven
• Managerial Objectivism vs. • Formalism vs.Pragmatism

Managerial Pragmatism • Experiential Knowledge vs.
• Fact vs. Application Factual Application
• Inductive and Intuitive • Inductive and Intuitive

• Pragmatic • Pragmatic
• Contextual • Contextual
• Associative and Teleological • Associative and Teleological

• Analysis and Synthesis • Analysis and Synthesis
• Empirical and Heuristic • Empirical and Heuristic
• Pattern Finding and Creating • Pattern Finding and Creating
• Input and Output Defining • Input and Output Defining
• Rhetoric and Heuristic • Rhetoric and Heuristic

• Problem Generating and Solving • Problem Generating and Solving
• Scientific and Design Inquiry • Scientific and Design Inquiry
• Experiential Knowledge • Experiential Knowledge

• Examples • Examples
• Internally Controlled • Internally and Externally Controlled
• Building Experiential Knowledge • Building Experiential Knowledge

• Successful Practice by • Successful Practice by
Subjective Results Subjective Results
7 Architectural knowledge is transformational. This means that the

individual elements of micro-knowledge, derived from several
disciplines — and as such relevant in their own disciplines
on the micro-level — when brought together transform their
content into wholes, which become relevant on an architectural
macro-level.
Case study research as a means of creating a body of knowledge should

address these characteristics. This inevitably leads to a need for different
types of case studies in architecture. The methodological comparison of case
study research in law, medicine, and business administration at first sight
implies that, in many ways, architectural case study research is much more
related to case studies in business administration than to law and medicine.
That there are major differences among types of case study research in
architecture is precisely because of the above-described multivariate charac-
teristics, making the case study undertaking complex, to be sure.
Fig. 2.5.3 provides an overview of this complexity in comparison with the

other three disciplines. As we have seen above, architectural thinking is
simultaneously rule-, problem-, and process-based. It is caught in a triangular
field of tension between design formalism, realistic thinking, and pragmatic
decision-making. Thinking like an architect involves the ability to switch
alternately between deductive and inductive reasoning and between intuitive
thinking and adductive reasoning — referring to the logic of what might be.
Further, the architect must do this within an unstable contextual framework.
The essence is pattern-finding and pattern-creating at the same time. In that
sense, design thinking is both empirical and heuristic. It forces the com-
bination of analytical and associative reasoning into meaningful syntheses,
based on experiential knowledge and successful practice. Design thinking
is per se innovative, teleological, and experimental, driven by empathy and
focused on problem-solving. It essentially deals with “wicked” problems with
multiple stakeholders and fuzzy boundaries, and in which the solution is
to be found between disciplines. Therefore design thinking brings to the
table a broad, multi-disciplinary spectrum of ideas from which to draw
inspiration that leads to concrete solutions.
180
5.3.4
Case Study Typology in Architecture
In the previous paragraph, I discussed the nature of the design activity and
of architectural knowledge. If we want to define case study parameters, it is 30
Schön, D.A., 1987,
important to refer back to these arguments and conclusions. Architectural The Reflective Practi-
design is a process of problem-generating and problem-solving at the same tioner, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
time. It is rule-based, as it is driven by both universal laws of physics and
31
particular rules imposed by context. This contextuality, along with the fact Dewey, J., 1923,
that it is also problem-based, makes the architectural design process unique Democracy and
Education, The Mac-
and subject to debate. As we have seen, this uniqueness is a major reason millan Company,
why it is distinguished from other production processes. New York.
Moreover, a design situation presents itself as a unique case that is 32
value- and belief-dependent, and therefore falls outside traditional categories Polanyi, M., 1966,
The Tacit Dimen-
of theories and techniques. It does not subscribe to disciplinary boundaries, sion, Doubleday &
nor is it well defined. On the contrary, a design problem is defined during the Company Inc.,
New York.
design process, and therefore constantly changing and adapting to the con-
textual circumstances. This heuristic character implies that design problems
are unstable and indeterminate, multi-layered and conflicting.
In every design situation, the architect tries to construct a problem that is
coherent and consistent, both internally and externally. This construction
should take into account the architect’s need to move between the physical
world, social-cultural reality, and the cognitive mind. From problem-
generating to problem-solving, the architect essentially walks an exploratory
road in a virtual world, a constructed representation of reality by the technique
of modeling.
In The Reflective Practitioner (1987) 30, Donald Schön, rightly pointed
out that in the terms of John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1923) 31,
this process is transactional, in that the architect’s action is both a testing of
the design hypothesis and also a move by which he tries to effect a desired
change in the given situation. But it is also transformational in the structur-
alist sense, since the architect uses rules of meta-design, as we have seen
in Part 1, Chapter 3. By doing so, he probes his own propositions in order
to understand them and fit them into the greater whole of a solution. This
reflection is primarily the product of tacit knowledge, as defined by Michael
Polanyi in The Tacit Dimension (1966) 32, and of implicit rational reasoning:
We know that we are moving in the right direction, but we are not able to
state the underlying rules or paradigms.
The question is, how can we use this tacit and experiential knowledge
from the past in such a unique and complex situation as described above.
Schön suggests that architects build up a “repertoire” of examples, images,
181
understandings, and actions across the design domains, including sites they
33 have seen, buildings they have known, previous design problems they have
Kuhn, T., 1977, The
Essential Tension: encountered, and solutions they have devised. Confronted with a unique
Selected Studies in design problem, the architect tries to find a matching or analogous situation
Scientific Tradition
and Change, Uni- in his repertoire, thus making the unique similar and familiar, while keeping
versity of Chicago the differences firmly in mind. The architect is looking for a precedent that
Press, Chicago.
may give him the problem-solving capacity for an essentially original and
34
Gerring, J., 2004,
new problem. According to Schön, the practitioner-architect sees "this"
“What Is a Case situation as "that" one, concluding that he may do again in this situation what
Study and What
Is It Good For?”,
was done in that one. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific
in American Political Tradition (1977) 33, Thomas Kuhn defined this reference to precedent as “an
Science Review,
Vol. 98, N° 2.
exemplar for the unfamiliar one.”
Case study research is a tool to make the individual “repertoire” more
Gerring, J., 2007,
Case Study Research,
generally applicable, and so to transform tacit knowledge and individual
Principles and experience into a body of disciplinary knowledge.
Practices, Cambridge
University Press,
Cambridge, England. If we analyze state-of-the-art case studies in architecture, we discover a
wide variety of approaches. This makes it difficult to compare the results
or integrate them into a consistent body of knowledge. If case studies are
to serve the purpose of understanding a larger class of units through an
intensive study of a single unit, it is necessary to investigate the different
types of case studies with the goal of forming a comprehensive typology.
This will provide new insights into an integrative model for architectural
education and practice.
An important contribution toward a consistent typology in case study

research is found in the social sciences. John Gerring has written extensively,
including two studies (2004, 2007) 34 about such a case study typology. He
distinguishes between research based on one single case and research based
on several cases, called “cross-case” research. A single case refers to a unit,
a delimited phenomenon, with spatial and temporal boundaries. Most of
the time, it contains sets of sub-cases, which Gerring calls “within-cases”.
Consequently, a case study is the comprehensive study of such a single case
and one or more of its within-cases. This study can be done at a particular
point in time (synchronically) or over a certain period of time (diachronically).
Cross-case research studies multiple cases and, from them, tries to
derive general principles. Cross-case research is, therefore, based on com-
parative analyses, all or not all situated into a historical dimension.
At first glance, this typology seems as though it might be applied to
case study research in architecture as well. Fig. 2.5.4 is an attempt to do so.
182
2.5.4
Case Types
Studied Variation Research

Sub-Level Type
spatial temporal
variation variation
product process
single • No Within-Cases • Building • Designing and • Case Study

case Building Process
• Within-Cases • Building Parts • Designing and • Within-Case

Building Phases Study
in the Process
several • No Within-Cases • Comparative • Comparative • Cross Case

cases Building Studies Processes Study
• Building • Process
Typologies Typologies
• Within-Cases • Comparative • Comparative • Cross

Building Parts Phases in Within-Case
Studies Processes Study
• Building Parts • Process Phases
Typologies Typologies
It is clear that in architecture, a study can be done on a single case or on

35 several cases. A case can be studied in general without taking sublevels or
Friedman, D, 2004,
“In Any Case: Ten so-called within-cases into account, or one can look at a particular set of
Questions for the within-cases.
Large Firm Round
Table”, ACSA/AIA However, the division between spatial variation and temporal variation
Cranbrook Teacher is less evident, as both space and time are important contextual parameters in
Seminar, Cranbrook
Academy of Art, architecture and are fundamentally intertwined. Therefore, it is not relevant
Bloomfield Hills, to study a single building or group of buildings — or a subset of within-cases
Michigan.
— in a single moment in time, as that will not reveal significant knowledge
about that building unless it is placed in its time frame. A similar problem
arises on the process level. The designing and building process must not
only be studied within its time frame, but is inextricably bound to its spatial
context.
Currently, case studies in architecture comply largely with the above Gerring-
based typology. They might focus on a particular building, aspects or parts of
buildings, or on a building typology. They are product-related and essentially
quantitative and descriptive. I shall call them type 1 studies.
Other examples focus on the design processes themselves, on the
multiple participants or stakeholders in those processes, and on the ways
in which decision-making occurs. They are qualitative, process-related, and
based on story-telling. I shall call them type 2 studies.
Type 1 studies are primarily analytical, investigating scientific and
technological aspects of a project. Type 2 studies not only look at managerial
and operational aspects of a project, but also take into account how decision-
makers or stakeholders direct the process. Type 2 studies deal with the con-
textual parameters and the less quantifiable conditions. Thus, type 2 studies
try to make statements about the art and design dimensions of architecture.
In his “In Any Case: Ten Questions for the Large Firm Round Table” (2004) 35,
Daniel Friedman makes a similar distinction, differentiating between what
he calls “case studies,” and “case method.” According to Friedman, “case
studies” refers to a product: a written document that focuses on the facts and
figures surrounding a single event or artifact. It is presented from beginning
to end within a narrative form. “Case method,” on the other hand, refers to a
process. With reference to the use of case method teaching in law, medicine,
and business, Friedman characterizes “case method” as based on Socratic
dialogue and the study of real conflicts, real events, and real persons. It is
about interpretation rather than factual reporting. As we have seen in our
comparative analysis, Friedman’s distinction applies more to case studies in
business than in law or medicine, and is therefore indeed useful in an archi-
tectural context.
184
Type 1 studies report the facts; they are explanatory and internally consist-
ent. They have a beginning and an end and primarily employ methods of 36
McLuhan, M., 1967,
scientific research. As such, they can be characterized as “case studies.” Understanding Media,
Type 2 studies, on the contrary, are based on argumentation and interpretation. Sphere Books Ltd.,
London; also 1994,
They are exploratory, tasked with asking questions rather than providing Understanding
answers. They use methods of research by design, defining the design Media, The Exten-
sions of Man, MIT
hypotheses that underlie the case and investigating possible design solutions Press, Cambridge,
by answering questions of how, why, and when. They belong to the “case Massachusetts.
method” group.
Architectural knowledge and architectural thinking, as defined above, are

essentially multilayered, interdisciplinary, and systemic. Moreover, they
are value-sensitive, contextual, and meta-leveled. As such, they are transfor-
mational, meaning that the individual elements or decisions of an architec-
tural design process are unimportant as such, but become relevant only as part
of a larger structure, governed by rules on a meta-level. From this transfor-
mational standpoint, type 1 studies investigate definable elements, while
type 2 studies explore relations between the elements and the dynamics
of the decision-making.
The issue of the “transformational” refers to Marshall McLuhan’s ground-

breaking studies (1967/1994) 36 on media and how they transform the cultural
world. He adapted the Gestalt Psychology idea of a “figure and ground,”
which underpins the meaning of his slogan “The Medium is the Message.”
He used this concept to explain how a form of communications technology,
the medium — or figure — necessarily operates through its context — or
ground. McLuhan believed that to fully grasp the effect of a new technol-
ogy, one must examine the figure/medium and the ground/context together,
since neither is completely intelligible without the other. He argued that we
must study media in their historical context, particularly in relation to the
technologies that preceded them. The present environment, incorporating
the effects of previous technologies, gives rise to new technologies, which,
in their turn, further affect society and individuals. Further, McLuhan argues
that all technologies have embedded within them their own assumptions
about time and space. The message, which is conveyed by the medium, can
only be understood if the medium and the environment in which it is used
— and which, simultaneously, it effectively creates — are analyzed together.
Architecture is indebted to the same law as explained above, and
therefore can only be understood when the medium – the architectural
language and technology – and the context are studied and understood as an
inseparable whole. McLuhan’s analysis provides a renewed insight into the
transformational characteristics of the architectural intervention.
185
2.5.5
Case Types 1/2/3
cool hot
Scientific Research Research by Design
explanatory exploratory
Science and Technology Art and Design
Product Related Project Process Related

types context
units beliefs
parts values
aspects decisions
Type 1 Type 3 Type 2

Case Study Case Project Case Method
Analytic Synthetic Heuristic
Fact Argument Discourse
Reporting Understanding Interpreting
To raise the professional level of architecture, and to validate the unique status
of research in the discipline, it is indeed necessary to identify and understand 37
Foqué, R.K.V., 1996b,
the rules that govern the transformational aspect of an architectural process. "In Search of a
That knowledge is necessary to answer questions such as “Why is a building Scientific Status of
Design Research" in
as it is?”, “Why are there many satisfying solutions to the same architec- Doctorates in Design
tural problem?”, and “Why is a building considered good by one and bad by and Architecture,
Vol. I, Delft University
another?” Answering these questions by way of the seven characteristics and Press, Delft, The
defining the essence of architectural knowledge as outlined in the previous Netherlands.
paragraph will give us the building blocks for a real body of knowledge and
renew the status of architecture as a true profession,
In order to do this, we need to introduce a third type of study. Where type 1

is a “case study” and type 2 belongs to “case method,” type 3 is “case project”
— the confrontation, interface, and synthesis of type 1 and type 2. The very
creation of type 3 cases establishes knowledge for the discipline: information
is gathered and facts established (type 1), then interpreted and contextualized
(type 2), contributing to a shared knowledge center (type 3), where scientific
research and research by design meet to produce theory. Such a knowledge
center is the cornerstone for building an integrated comprehensive design
model, as I advocated in “Design Research: A New Paradigm,” (1999) 37.
Fig. 2.5.5 shows how these three types of studies are interrelated. The various
models are illustrated in relation to their correspondence with type 1, type 2,
or type 3 cases.
187
6
The biggest challenge for all of us, designers and businesspeople
alike, is to become equally adept at quantifying the now and
intuiting what’s next. There’s simply no other way to win.
Roger Martin, 2006, Dean of the Rotman Business School

Chapter 6
A General Method for Case Project
Research in Architecture
If we intend to establish a general and universal body of knowledge

regarding the architectural discipline, along with a robust frame of reference
wherein it can be embedded, we need a unified and universally applicable
methodology. That is the only way to objectively compare the results of case
study research in general and cross-case projects in particular, and from
them to formulate general and systematic patterns. As argued above, that is
the key to establishing a consistent and practical architectural design theory.
As we have seen in the previous chapter, a case project is constituted by

both case study and case method. The confrontation and intertwining of the
outcome of these parts can produce comprehensive architectural knowledge.
Therefore, a general method for case project research should provide for
this. It should address quantitative and qualitative parameters and inves-
tigate how each contributes to the realization of an architectural object.
How do these parameters interrelate, how are they connected, and how do
they influence each other?
Moreover, the method should allow for a deeper insight into the
complex relationship between context, product, and process, including the
roles of different actors in that process. It will be based on an analytical
discourse and on argumentative and rhetorical means, with the last two
seen not as mere skills or techniques of pure persuasion, but as necessary
components of a pragmatic approach to answering the question of why a
design solution is optimal within a given context.
If we agree that case research can generate information to make the indi-
vidual “repertoire” of an architect more generally applicable and transform
tacit knowledge and individual experience into a body of disciplinary
knowledge, we may be able to state the underlying rules or paradigms of the
architectural discipline.
Following our analysis of the way architectural thinking works, an
efficient methodology for case research in architecture should be multi-
layered, multivariate, and multi-contextual. Multilayered, as it has to
189
investigate product, process, and context and the way they are intertwined;
multivariate, as it has to pass judgment on different participants of the
process and the way they interact and influence decision-making; and multi-
contextual, as the same design problem will be approached differently by
each architect, giving rise to different and unique solutions in the same
spatial and time context.
In the next paragraphs, I will outline a method for case research in architec-
ture that can address these aspects in a systematic way. I started to develop
the method at the Higher Institute of Architectural Sciences Henry Van de
Velde in Antwerp in the late 1980’s, where I was working with students on
what was at that time called “project analysis.” The method was gradually
improved and theoretically supported, becoming what appears to be a robust
and consistent vehicle for case study research. It can be used in a single-case
study or in a comparative study, where multiple cases are studied; it can be
used to study a case in general or on the level of its within-cases.
2 6.1
Defining the Case Type

Before beginning any case study, it is crucial to define in a clear and exact
way the boundaries within which the study will be done, the parameters
under investigation, and the hypothesis we want to investigate. What is the
aim of the study and what is the expected output?
As we have seen, architectural design is in principle a hypothesis-gener-

ating activity par excellence. The way we execute a single-case study should
take this into account. This means that a single-case study cannot be used
as a tool in a traditional “conjectures” and “refutations” process, but must
be considered an exploratory tool to understand the nature of a proposed
design hypothesis and why that hypothesis should be viable and valuable
within its context. Consequently, the outcome of such a study will in its turn
be a hypothesis. In other words, single-case studies can generate hypotheses
on the level of architectural knowledge by investigating hypotheses on the
design level.
Single-case studies in architecture are, therefore, hypothesis-gener-
ating and not hypothesis-testing. However, cross-case analysis on the basis
of multiple comparable cases can test the generated hypothesis and raise
it to the level of a contextual paradigm. Type 1 case research will do that
on the product level; type 2 case research will do that on the process level.
190
2.6.1
The Architectural Knowledge Generator
Architectural Knowledge Base
Paradigm Formulation
multiple Type 1 Type 3 Type 2

cases Study Study Study
Knowledge Hypothesis
single Type 1 Type 3 Type 2

case Study Study Study
Design Hypothesis
2.6.2
Type 1 / Type 2 / Type 3 Studies, Buildings
Type 1 Study
single case multiple cases
no- A primary school building in a Primary school buildings in similar

within particular neighborhood neighborhoods
within • The classroom layout and the • Typology of classroom layouts and
floor plans floor plans in similar school buildings
• HVAC systems integration • HVAC typology in that kind of school
• Material use in relation to buildings
construction detailing • Detail typology in relation to
material use
Type 2 Study
no- The decision-making process Comparative study of decision-making

within regarding the realization of a primary processes regarding the realization
school building in a particular of primary school buildings in similar
neighborhood neighborhoods
within The decision-making process Comparative study of decision-making

regarding the classroom layout; processes regarding the classroom
the HVAC systems integration; layout; the HVAC systems integration;
the material use and detailing the material use and detailing
Type 3 Study
no- Knowledge and understanding why Knowledge and understanding why

within the primary school building is as it is primary school buildings may have
in that particular neighborhood a certain typology in that kind of
neighborhood
within Knowledge and understanding why Knowledge and understanding why

in that particular school building classroom layouts may manifest
in that particular neighborhood the a certain typology in that kind of
classroom layout is as it is neighborhood
2.6.3
Type 1 / Type 2 / Type 3 Studies, Firms
Type 1 Study
no- The architectural language of a The architectural style of a particular

within particular architect /firm group or generation of architects
within The architectural solution of a The architectural style of a particular

particular architect /firm to a specific generation of architects regarding a
building type specific building type
Type 2 Study
no- The design approach /process of The design methodology of a

within a particular architect /firm particular group or generation
of architects
within The design approach /process of a The design methodology of a particular

particular architect /firm in relation to group or generation of architects in
a particular building type relation to a particular building type
Type 3 Study
no- Knowledge and understanding about The relation between style, method,
within how a particular architect /firm and design solution within a group
integrates method and content and or generation of architects
their mutual influence
within Knowledge and understanding about The relation between style, method,
how a particular architect /firm and design solution within a group
integrates method and content and or generation of architects regarding
their mutual influence in relation to a particular set of design problems
a particular building type
The integration within the same case of both types into a type 3 case project
will make it possible to transform the contextual paradigms into architec-
tural knowledge. This comprehensive use of type 1 and type 2 research into
type 3 creates a method for generating architectural knowledge (Fig. 2.6.1).
It is precisely the combination of a type 1 study with a type 2 study of a par-
ticular building or of multiple buildings that will generate knowledge on
a transformational level, allowing us to understand the uniqueness of an
architectural product as well as the contribution it makes to the study of
architectural production in general.
Therefore, it is first important to determine the type of study we want to

conduct. As we have seen, type 1 studies are product-related. They investi-
gate a single building or a collection of buildings within its spatial context.
The study will be essentially descriptive, analytical, and fact-based, directed
at the building as a whole (without within-cases) or at certain aspects of a
building (within-cases).
Type 2 studies are process-related, directed toward the time context.
Such a study will be narrative, interpretative, and reconstruction-based,
focused on the underlying decision-making process and/or life cycle of a
building (no within-case) or of certain aspects of a building (within-case).
Type 3 studies are simultaneously analytical, interpretative, and
explanatory. They combine facts with intentions and qualities within contex-
tual circumstances.
Fig. 2.6.2 gives an example of how a case regarding a particular
building type can be defined in the context of several types of case studies.
Fig. 2.6.3 does the same on the level of the oeuvre of a particular
architect or architectural firm.
2 6.2
Selecting a Case
The selection of a case depends not only on the type of study we want to
conduct, but even more on the questions we want to address. These
questions must be directly related to the knowledge we want to obtain
through the case study. Important here is the ability of a case study to create
pertinent knowledge. In the previous chapter, we discussed the character-
istics and criteria for such case validity. The selection of a case or multiple
cases must be directly based on these criteria. Important questions to ask
include: Is there sufficient information available? What are the sources
of this information and where can we find them? Is the information
194
A General Method for Case Project Research in Architecture
confidential? Is the building, or group of buildings, accessible; can it be

visited? Are the several stakeholders/participants prepared to collaborate?
At what level and at what cost do they want to participate?
2 6.3
Addressing Multilayered
Characteristics: the PCP analysis
As we have seen, the result of an architectural intervention can only be
understood within its contextual parameters and is directly dependent 37
on the process that led to that intervention. This context has a physical “The Case Study
dimension but also a non-physical one that belongs to the level of ideas, as an Extension
into Scholarship
norms, values, attitudes, and ideologies. Case studies in architecture should and Research”, in
address these different layers. This means that product, process, and context Proceedings of the
Case Study Work
are under investigation, not as separate entities but as mutually influen- Group, Open Meeting
cing constituencies. The relevance and validity of a case study are therefore 3, AIA, San Francisco.
directly dependent on the degree to which this multilayered characteristic is
understood.
In my contribution to the AIA Case Study Work Group Open Meeting,

which took place in 2003 in San Francisco (2003) 37, I provided a brief
outline of how we might deal with this multilayered characteristic. I will
now elaborate further on this method, which I have called the PCP analysis
(Product-Context-Process) (Fig. 2.6.4). This analysis aims to understand the
complex interactions between the context within which the architect has had
to work, the end result with all of its characteristics, and the process that led
to the building within that given context.
The methodological framework of this analysis is based on a system-
atic and integrated approach.
6.3.1
Product Analysis
The aim of this analysis is to gain as much insight as possible into the
building and/or building parts on the level of objective and observable facts
and figures. The researcher should describe the building as it is by analyzing
several aspects. The product analysis is done on five levels; on each, the
analysis must be consistent and comprehensive. On each level, conclusions
195
2.6.4
PCP (Product – Content – Process) Analysis
Context
Product Process
2.6.5
Product Analysis
functional
analysis
construction cost
analysis analsysis
environmental morphological
analysis analysis
have to be drawn and the relations and interferences between them discov-
ered, commented on, and discussed with stakeholders such as the architect,
the client, the user, the contractor, and the authorities. By doing so, “subjec-
tive” facts can be objectified, and information is gathered that can be used
during the context and process analyses.
Product Environmental Analysis

The building is analyzed as part of the environmental system. Its relevance
to the urban tissue and/or landscape is studied: How is it situated in
relation to other buildings, how is it disclosed to the traffic system, how
do you approach the building, where are the entrances, etc.? What is the
relation between outside and inside space, and how are they architecturally
connected?
Product Functional Analysis

The building is analyzed as a functional system: a collection of rooms,
spaces, connecting elements, and outdoor places where certain activities
can or should take place. A distinction should be made between the quanti-
tative and the qualitative data both on the level of the “plan analysis” and the
“occupancy analysis”.
• In the plan analysis, a functional model of the building is made:
functional spaces (indoor/outdoor) are described in individual
terms but also in the way they are grouped together into func-
tional building parts and may form a hierarchy of spaces. The
relationships and possible intersections between the spaces are
indicated both on the level of a particular part of a building and
on the level of the entire building.
Horizontal and vertical circulation patterns are studied and
reconstructed by means of diagrams.
• In the “occupancy analysis”, the building is seen as an accom-
modation for a collection of activities. Data should be obtained
in relation to the dynamics of the building as a place of human
activities. Questions to be answered include: Which activities
take place in the building? Which of them are intended, which
are not? Are there seasonal differences, differences in use
between day and night? What is the frequency of use? What
space or room is used for what? Did the intended function of a
certain space change during occupancy, and for what reason?
197
Product Technical Analysis

In this part, the building is seen as a collection of technical parts. Research
and data gathering is done on three levels.
• The structural level: Structural parts are analyzed and structural
typology is investigated and reconstructed in a model. What is
the bearing structure? Is the design based on a modular system?
• The level of finishing and detailing: Descriptions are made of
the cladding materials, construction details, interior design
elements, built-in furniture, etc.
• The systems integration level: Heating, ventilating, cooling,
sanitary, electrical, and mechanical systems are studied in
relation to the construction, finishing, intended operational
goals, and real output during occupation. What were the require-
ments and specifications, and are they matched?
Product Morphological Analysis

The morphological analysis investigates architectural form and its internal
and external consistency. The building is seen as an integrated system of
forms and masses. Architectural elements are described and analyzed,
answering such questions as: Does the architecture of the building belong
to a particular style or school? Has the architect made use of particular
aesthetic elements, proportions, and patterns? What is the relationship
between internal and external form? How does the use of colors, textures,
and materials relate to the architectural form?
Product Cost Analysis

The researcher should try to understand the real costs in relation to the
initial budget. This part is not always easy, as these figures are often confi-
dential and difficult to contextualize. It is recommended to do this cost
analysis in as much detail as possible in relation to the building parts, the
structural work, the finishing, and the several systems, and to compare these
results with similar building types.
It is essential that the product analysis conclude with a discussion of how

the architect has integrated these five lines and/or levels of approach into
one integrated “piece of architecture” (Fig.2.6.5)
Special attention has to be given to how the architect has dealt with
the interaction of constituent components. How did function influence con-
struction and vice versa? How did decisions about the massing influence
structural choices? How did systems integration determine the morphology
198
of the building? Are only some of these questions to be asked and answered?
Why?
Personal observations and interpretations should be obtained by
interviewing stakeholders in the process, including the architect, engineer-
ing firms, client, contractor, and users. Comparative analysis of these data
in relation to facts and figures should enable the researcher to get an
“objective” insight into the product as a whole. The method of triangu-
lation is a practical tool by which this may be accomplished. The researcher
analyzes the systemic aspects of the building by investigating a number of
relational triangles.
For each triangle, the case researcher should investigate the relation-
ships among the three elements and determine whether they work and to
what extent they contribute to the architectural quality of the case.
Examples of such triangles are:
• Form – Function – Construction,
• Material – Detail – Sustainability,
• Exterior – Interior – Environment,
• Perception – Use – Maintenance,
• Building Techniques – Technical Installations – Budget and
and Schedule
In a next round, we reshuffle the triangles into different combinations

and do a second analysis:
• Form – Detail – Perception,
• Construction – Maintenance – Budget and Schedule,
• Function – Use – Technical Installations, etc.
By doing so, we force ourselves to re-examine the same parts within another
context and in different relationships, discovering the synergetic character of
an architectural object.
This method enables deeper study into the way an architectural product is
the result of an almost indefinable number of interrelated sub-solutions and
decisions on both macro and micro levels.
199
6.3.2
Context Analysis
The goal of this analysis should be threefold: first, to reconstruct all the
elements that constituted the context during the designing and building
process; second, to determine how and why these contextual parameters
have influenced the design and building decision-making; third, to unveil,
map, and understand the relational network linking the different contextual
components.
The parameters to be investigated should be seen as interacting
elements of a contextual subsystem. These subsystems are the elements of
the overall dynamic contextual system wherein the design-built activity takes
place. The following subsystems may be distinguished:
The Physical Context

The physical context includes all those elements which determine the
physical qualities of the building site and its surroundings. They are
quantifiable and may be described in objective terms. Research questions
to be answered include: What are the dimensions of the site? What is the
topography? What is the orientation with respect to natural lighting and
climate exposure? What are the qualities of the soil? What is the micro-
ecosystem of the site and how does it fit into a greater regional whole?
What kind of infrastructures are already present and what are their charac-
teristics? How is the site connected to the rest of the environment?
The Socio-Cultural-Historical Context

This includes all the elements that describe the sociology of the neigh-
borhood, the town, and the region — and also the cultural infrastruc-
ture and level of social interaction and the way the case is situated within
the dimension of architectural history. Some of these elements will be
quantifiable and objectively measurable, some of them only qualitatively
describable. Research questions include: How would we describe the social
composition of the neighborhood’s occupants, social status, intellectual
level, professional composition, moral and ethical values, etc.? How safe is
the neighborhood, what are the crime rates, kinds of crimes, etc.? What are
the important historical facts and values regarding the case? What elements
of cultural infrastructure, such as schools, museums, theatres, community
centers, libraries, and churches, are present? What kind of commercial
entities are present, such as shops, restaurants, cafés, and what is their
quality?
200
The Legal Context

This analysis includes all the elements applied from a legal standpoint to
the design and the construction of the case. They refer to the whole body
of applicable codes and regulations. This subsystem will be descriptive by
nature. The analysis will rely on initially collecting all relevant codes, rules
and guidelines, such as building codes, town planning policies, safety
regulations, functional, technical and ecological standards to be met, etc.
It will then determine to what extent they are mandatory and applicable to
the case under study.
The Economic and Financial Context

The elements to be researched here are: budgets and resources; eventual
local, regional, or national subsidies; grants; tax incentives; type of finan-
cing; and stakeholders involved. The collected data will be quantifiable and
can be represented as objective facts and constraints.
The Project Context

This analysis tries to map the several constituents of the project under study.
The elements to be investigated are related to the project brief (or program)
and to the choice of the architect commissioned to execute the project.
The collected data will be essentially descriptive in both quantifiable and
qualitative ways. So it is essential that we know the original brief that the
architect received at the start of the project, including requirements, pre-
scriptions regarding material choices, timing and planning, and how the
brief was modified and changed during the design process.
Equally important is an investigation of the architect-selection
process. When in the overall process was it done, and what criteria were
used? What was the procedure — through competition, interviewing, study
visits, or another method? How did the commission fit in with the total
oeuvre of the architect, and what were his architectural philosophy and
specific beliefs?
As in the product analysis, the context analysis should conclude with an

extensive examination of the relationships and links between the five
contextual subsystems (Fig. 2.6.6). The mapping and understanding of their
interactions will produce a more comprehensive view of the case context
and will give us indispensable information for a valid testing of the design
hypothesis, as outlined in the first part of this book.
We should be aware, however, that a design context is not static, but
changes over time. In other words, the context changes during the design-
ing and building process due to its bipolar and biperspective character.
201
2.6.6
Context Analysis
physical
context
socio-cultural economic
and historical and financial
context context
legal project
context context
2.6.7
Process Analysis
level of decision making
Level of
Relational
Network
level of process continuity

This dynamic behavior of the context system must be fully understood as

a prerequisite for the validity of the case study. It should therefore be one
of the key elements under investigation during the process analysis as it
defines the multilayered character of the context itself.
6.3.3
Process Analysis
The analysis of the designing-building process must be done in parallel with
the context and product analyses. It is the most difficult and delicate part
of the PCP-analysis, as possible important facts and figures may have dis-
appeared or may no longer be available. The researcher must rely on the
“stories” and interpretations of the architect, the client, and the contractor.
He must be constantly aware of the “colored” meanings of these stories,
and try to compensate for individual biases. Comparing information from
multiple stakeholders with the same story is understood to transform sub-
jective interpretations and believed truths into contextual objective facts.
The process analysis should be done on three levels: the level of decision-
making; the level of relational networks connecting process participants;
and the level of continuity in relation to the timeframe.
The Level of Decision-Making

A designing-building process can be seen as a chain of interrelated instances
of decision-making. Each decision contributes towards the final outcome and
is co-responsible for the product being realized. It is important to recognize
hierarchy in the decision-making process. Some decisions fundamentally
determine the output; these are the key decisions; others are subordinated
to the primary ones and are complementary to them; and still others are of
minor importance and have no influence on the process outcome. The goal
of this analysis is to reconstruct this decision-making chain in as objective
a way as possible, and to distinguish between the categories of importance.
Decision-mapping along a timeline is a very useful tool for doing this.
Decisions are always made by actual persons or organizations
involved in the process: the process protagonists. Full understanding of the
relationships between the decision-making process and the product output
assumes insight into the context in which decisions are made, by whom
they are made, and why they are made. What is the motivation behind
a decision? What are the reasons and arguments to promote a particu-
lar decision over others? How is consensus reached to make a particular
decision that may not have been obvious at first? These are some of the
crucial questions to investigate.
203
The Level of Relational Networks.

As mentioned in Part 1 of this book, the designing and building process is
characterized by the great variety of participants involved. They pursue their
own goals and seek to optimize them during the process. To that end, they
form alliances and engage in ephemeral and changing networks of interest.
The ways in which communication takes place within these networks
determine to a great extent the final building output. Temporary coalitions
are made, and compromises are reached. It is part of the process analysis
to understand the interplay among these participants, to unravel these
networks, to see how, when, and why they change throughout the process,
and to trace their effects on the decision-making — and ultimately on the
end product. As we shall see in the next paragraph, the result of this analysis
will have direct importance for investigating the multivariate qualities of the
case.
The Level of Process Continuity

At first glance the designing building process seems to be a continuous
one, with a starting point and a well-defined end. In reality, it is not, as
the process proceeds through points of discontinuity. These are the points
that are of paramount interest. They define important moments where the
project may not only have taken a different road, and where irrevocable
decisions are made, but also where the designing-building context changes
in a definite way. The process analysis should highlight these points of dis-
continuity, determine their influence on the end product, and investigate
how they changed the contextual parameters. Moreover, the starting and end
points of the process should be well defined by the researcher, as they are
often unclear. This will enable us to frame the case in time and indicate the
limits of the study.
The above may give the impression that the process analyses on the three
distinct levels are separate pieces of work. Nothing could be less true. They
only reveal their significance when approached in parallel. It is therefore
recommended that the process be reconstructed simultaneously on each
of the three levels as outlined above. The decision-making process must be
mapped in time along the line of continuity/discontinuity and in relation to
participatory involvement and networking (Fig. 2.6.7).
204
2 6.4
Addressing Multivariateness: the

ACCU-A Analysis
As we have seen, the uniqueness of the design process is co-determined
by the variety of the participants involved, their changing roles, discipli-
nary knowledge, skills, attitudes, and value systems. They form an intrinsic
part of the context and are responsible for the course of action during the
designing and building process. Here we touch on the different aspects of
communication and information flows during this process in relation to
what I have defined as the asymmetry of knowledge between the different
stakeholders – the most important being the architect, the client, the con-
tractor, the users, and the authorities involved. I shall address the influences
of these various participants by doing what I call ACCU-A (Architect-Client-
User-Authorities) analysis.
The goal of the ACCU-A analysis (Fig. 2.6.8) is to get a clear picture
of these stakeholders and the roles they have played in the process: the
architect and his design team, the client, the contractor, the user, and the
authorities involved. Finally, it is important to understand their individual
assessment of the end product. This evaluation allows us to contextualize
the strengths and weaknesses of the case under investigation, and to test
a participant’s own conclusions by comparing them with the opinions of
the other parties involved. Data should be collected regarding three aspects:
the profile of the participants, their contribution during the process, and
their personal views, opinions, and reactions regarding the product and
processes.
Profile Description
The profile description of every participant will give us a framework,
whereby we may interpret each one’s actions, decisions, and degree of
influence on the final result. At the same time, this will enable us to better
understand the design outcome as a result of creative and heuristic thinking,
subjective judgments, and collaborative effort.
In relation to the client, the profile analysis must answer questions
such as: Is the client an individual or an organization? If an organization,
how is it structured? What are the client’s relevant beliefs and values? What
is the attitude towards architecture and building in general? To what degree
is the client experienced in building and/or developing a project? Has the
client developed a particular strategy regarding the project undertaken?
205
2.2.8
ACCU-A Analysis
Authorities
architect client
user contractor
Authorities
In relation to the architect, similar questions need to be answered:

Are we dealing with an individual designer or with a firm? How large is
that firm, and how is it structured? What is the in-house know-how, and
what services can be offered? What is the level of experience, overall and
in relation to the commission? How does this commission fit into his
total oeuvre? What is his architectural vision and how is it expressed in
his buildings? Does he use a standard approach or methodology to solve
architectural design problems? Are there particular likes and dislikes
regarding certain technologies, materials, etc.?
In relation to the contractor, it is important to know his organi-
zational structure, workload capacity, in-house disciplines and technology,
know-how and skills, and experience with building in general and with the
project under study in particular. Are subcontractors involved? Which ones,
how many, for what purpose? What is their added value? What was their
relation with the general contractor, etc.?
The profile description of the users is equally important, as they will
be the occupants of the building and therefore the touchstone for evaluating
its success or failure when occupied. Questions similar to those asked of
the client should be answered. Important here is the composition of the
user group in terms of age, sex, social status, educational level, professional
disciplines, related experience, etc.
The group of official bodies involved is of another category. Their
role in the process is different, as they may intervene from a legal stand-
point and derive interventional power from their official position and
administrative function within society. They provide the necessary permits,
but also play a controlling, sanctioning, and advising role as the guardians
of the law and of the public interest. Defining their role in the process and
their influence on the final outcome must be done in close relation with the
legal context analysis.
Participants’ Contributions
This aspect must be investigated closely, along with the analysis of the
process as outlined above. A description of the role each stakeholder played
during the designing and building process is a useful tool to contextualize
the decision-making. Questions such as the following will help to do that:
What were the interaction patterns? Which communication media were
used, and how effective were they? What was the degree of involvement of
each participant in different phases of the process? What was their contri-
bution, and to what degree did it change the course of action and the final
outcome?
207
Personal Views and Opinions

Asking each stakeholder for his views on the product and process brings the
ACCU-A analysis to a meta-level. This analysis shall be done on the basis
of structured and well-prepared interviews based on data gathered during
the PCP analysis. Topics to cover are the degree of satisfaction with the end
product and with the overall process, the quality of interaction and commu-
nication among the participants, appreciation of their own role and involve-
ment, their thoughts on problem management during the designing-build-
ing process and the role of the authorities, and any other matter they may
deem important.
It is clear that the data gathered in the ACCU-A analysis are of a different
kind from those collected in the PCP analysis. They are less quantifiable and
more of a qualitative nature. They reflect personal viewpoints, subjective
interpretations, and “colored” information. Therefore, the interpretation of
these data should be done in an observational way and not further biased
by the researcher’s own standpoints. They should be presented as recorded
facts.
2 6.5
Concluding the Case

The PCP analysis and the ACCU-A analysis still do not constitute a case.
38 In fact, the first is an adequate method for type 1 case studies, the second
Foqué, R.G.M.E.,
1998, “Global Gov-
for type 2 studies. To generate comprehensive knowledge, however, we
ernance and the Rule have argued that we must understand the rules that govern architectural
of Law” in Interna-
tional Law, Theory
processes on the transformational level. Only then will we be able to answer
and Practice, (Ed. the questions posed in the previous chapter: Why is the building as it is, and
K. Wellens), Kluwer
Law International,
why are there multiple solutions to the same architectural problem?
Amsterdam. What is needed is a test of the design hypothesis as explained in
39 chapter 2 of Part 1. I will call that ‘concluding the case.’
Dewey, J., 1923,
Democracy and
This conclusion is based on extensive comparative research correl-
Education, The Mac- ating the data collected in the PCP analysis and those in the ACCU-A
millan Company,
New York.
analysis. Arriving at this conclusion will involve a contextual interpre-
tation of the facts, figures, and opinions. It will be based on the method-
40
Putnam, H., 1995, ology of argumentation and discussion, as explained by René Foqué in
Pragmatism: an “Global Governance and the Rule of Law” (1998) 38, which refers to the
Open Question,
Blackwell Publishers, process of pragmatic thinking in the tradition of John Dewey (1923) 39 and
Oxford, England, Hilary Putnam (1995) 40, which link conceptual thought and action with
and Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
208
situational consciousness. As argued in the previous chapter, this discus-

sion and evaluation must be done on three levels: syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic.
Two research actions have to be carried out. First, we must examine the
interaction between product, context, and process — and how that inter-
action has contributed to the uniqueness of the solution. What synergy
is created, what are the mechanisms that generate that synergy, and what
principles can be derived from it? Second, using the results of the inves-
tigation into the patterns of interaction among all participants, we must
determine their influences on the product, context, and process. The com-
parison and combination of the outcomes of these two research actions will
result in an overall conclusion about the case under study. This conclusion
will be both descriptive and explanatory, based on robust arguments. At the
same time, the case study researcher should comment on his own learning
process and how such study may have helped him gain a better unders-
tanding of the designing-building process — and, consequently, how this
understanding may contribute to and be embedded in a general body of
architectural knowledge. The result is that concluding the case builds pro-
fessional knowledge.
209
7
The function of knowledge is to make one experience freely
available to other experiences. The word ‘freely’ marks the
difference between the principle of knowledge and that of habit.
Knowledge furnishes the means of understanding or giving
meaning to what is still going on and what is to be done.
John Dewey, 1916, Democracy and Education

Chapter 7
Building Knowledge through Case
Study Research
The line of reasoning throughout the book leads us to state that the essence
of architectural design is the transformation from the “life-factual” to the
"design-factual" and back. This necessarily implies the confrontation between
physical laws, which govern the physical world, and paradigms, which consti-
tute the cognitive world of ideas, values, and perception. This transformation
is where technology transcends cultural reality, where science and art meet
to create purposeful synergetic value. The variety and uniqueness of this
process gives it an almost infinite complexity, and therefore it can never be
described or understood. Architecture constantly integrates facts and values.
It is an activity of materializing ideas and concepts to meet human needs.
This is certainly one of the reasons why the architectural discipline has
always taken a somewhat ambiguous position among the other professional
disciplines, such as law and medicine. On the one hand, architecture relies
on the hard facts of physics, material sciences, and building technology; on
the other, it systematically evades any discussion on that level, as it wants
to be judged on the level of sensory perception, functional well-being, and
innovative power. That may explain why architects seem to almost deliber-
ately avoid scholarly debate that distinguishes between objective facts and
subjective values and interpretations. It is almost frightening to see how little
substantial and comprehensive knowledge there is about important contem-
porary buildings and why they are the way they are.
This paradoxical situation weighs seriously on present architectural discourse

and leads to unclear and disparate views towards architectural education.
The situation is exacerbated by the widening gap between academia, profes-
sional building environments, and changing technologies — the latter almost
impossible to keep pace with. Ignoring the fact that architecture needs a body
of knowledge that is both pragmatic and teachable is no longer an option if
the architectural profession wants to survive the coming decades.
Nevertheless, the specific character of design by research and the funda-

mental differences between the method of scientific inquiry and of artistic
211
inquiry give the architectural design activity its own scholarly status, as
argued in the Part 1 of this book. This implies that the architectural disci-
pline is governed by its own laws, premises, and paradigms. Our task is to
discover, understand, and apply them. Building knowledge in architecture is
only possible with full insight into these laws, premises, and paradigms —
and into the processes that steer them.
2 7.1
Case Study Research as an

Engine for Architectural
Knowledge
In this book, I have tried to build an argument as to why case study research
is important and vital for understanding the core activity of architects, from
the viewpoint of both theoretical and methodological design. Case study
research of type 3 is believed to be a powerful tool to do this. It examines the
underlying processes and links them to both the end products, in relation
to the several stakeholders involved, and the context wherein they emerged.
By doing so, it tries to reveal and make clear the contextuality of the process
itself. Using a universal and unified methodology should make it possible
to systematically build a proprietary body of architectural knowledge. We
have distinguished seven main characteristics of architectural knowledge.
How does type 3 case study research address these characteristics?
Addressing Multidisciplinarity
A case study not only reveals the roles of the disciplines involved in the
designing and building process, but also their individual contributions with
regard to content. It studies the extent to which these contributions influence
each other, are intertwined, and have determined the final product. As a result,
we should have a more comprehensive insight into joint decision-making:
how, for instance, the choice of a particular structural solution has contrib-
uted to the form of the building; how a proposed solution by the systems
engineer has improved its functional qualities and has co-determined the
internal architectural finishing of the building, including the interior design
process; or how the landscape architect has influenced the way the architect
has dealt with the transition between the exterior and the interior. In that
sense, case study research can offer a better understanding of the synergetic
architectural effects caused by interdisciplinary collaboration. On the level
212
Building Knowledge through Case Study Research
of comparative case research, where multiple similar cases are studied, it

should be possible to establish more general patterns regarding these two 41
Alexander, C., 1977,
aspects, thus contributing to a better understanding of the interdisciplinary A Pattern Language,
relationships and the building as a product of interdisciplinary knowledge. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Addressing Contextuality Alexander, C., 1979,

A Timeless Way of
A building is not something that can exist on its own. Any architectural Building, Oxford
University Press,
product can only be understood in terms of its context. This context is per New York.
se multilayered, as we have explained, and its constituent parameters are of
both physical and non-physical nature. In two pivotal books (1977, 1979) 41,
Christopher Alexander acknowledged the importance of the design contex-
tuality, developing a pattern language, which he presented as a universal
tool to solve design problems. Although his method suffered from a lack
of consistent, objective data and was blurred by an overly subjective and
personal vision of how to solve environmental and architectural problems,
the pattern language was important as the first attempt to systematically
put design requirements into their physical and cultural contexts relative to
design solutions. But in order to do this, we need a more systematic insight
into this interplay between product and context, based on “objective” data
which can be generalized and re-used in similar design situations. As we
have seen, case study research may be the strongest tool to offer this infor-
mation. It extensively describes the designing and building context and
formulates answers about how the design solution addresses the contextual
parameters. Comparative case research, when done in a systematic way,
can generalize individual solutions into commonly applicable possibilities,
revealing patterns governing the complex and often hidden mechanisms of
the designing and building process. Such research will produce knowledge
not in absolute terms, as done in the case of a scientific inquiry, but in con-
textual terms, respecting the specific character of the architectural discipline.
Addressing Value Sensitivity

Architecture has always embodied the socio-cultural and economic value
system from which it emerged. There is an inextricable bond between archi-
tectural production and the individual and societal aspirations of its gener-
ation. That explains why architecture has always balanced between art and
science, between subjective interpretations of reality and objective facts,
between the qualitative and the quantitative. This unique position of the archi-
tectural discipline makes it a true engine of cultural evolution, bringing
meaning to the physical world. Thus architectural design activity is subject
to societal ideologies, ethical values, aesthetic beliefs, personal opinions,
and individual taste. The result throughout history has been an almost
213
incredible variety of architectural styles, building forms, and utopian visions.

The current shift from pure functional thinking to ecological thinking with
respect to sustainability is a good example of how the architectural disci-
pline is constantly confronted with new challenges and needs to create new
knowledge. Case study research also intervenes on this level. It investigates
and compares the values and belief systems of the stakeholders and tries
to identify how they are expressed in the built result. At the same time,
such research positions the building in its cultural and societal context and
tries to comment on the fit between context and built result — on how that
building is an emanation of its times. Comparative case research can discover
common characteristics, while revealing tendencies and new trends that
lead to a better understanding of contemporary architecture and its cultural
meaning and significance.
Addressing the Multiple Levels

The starting point for any architectural intervention is problem-based and
solution-driven. The process leading from the problem to the solution
co-determines the quality of that solution. The level of basic and experien-
tial knowledge and the level of skill to apply that knowledge in concert with
the rules of building technology are crucial for success in that operation.
Little is known about the way this process evolves in practice and how
the architect is able to operate concurrently on these two above-mentioned
levels. On the one hand, the architect deals with concrete problem solving;
on the other, he must critically evaluate his own course of contextual actions,
which may lead to a reformulation of the problem and consequently to
new viewpoints regarding the solution. Case study research is the only tool
that generates insight into this complex process. It does so by examining
in parallel the architectural intervention as a product and the decision-mak-
ing process from which that product has emanated. It can bring individual
experiential knowledge to the level of general applicability. It builds upon
the experience of others, distinguishing between successful practice and
failures, and brings the discipline to a higher degree of professional expertise
and awareness.
Addressing the Systemic Character

In my Part 1, Chapter 3, analysis of the design process as a structuring activity,
I argued that the architectural design activity can be explained in terms
of dynamic systems theory, and also how the building as a product of that
activity may be described in systemic terms. Architectural value and building
quality can only be understood in terms of the constituent elements and the
way they are interconnected to form a whole. The concept of wholeness as a
214
comprehensive synthesis of facts and values, of form and function, and of

technology and material is fundamental to evaluating architecture in qualita-
tive terms. Case study research addresses precisely these relationships: What
are the constituent elements of the building, seen as a collection of integrated
functions and as a construction system translated into a formal language?
How are ideas and concepts materialized into an environmental artifact? A
case study will systematically analyze building elements and then investi-
gate the way they are connected and interrelated, describing the underlying
patterns. It will lead to a better understanding of the synergetic characteristics
of architectural design as a process, while also explaining the holistic quality
of the building itself. On the level of comparative case study research, it can
discover and generate prevailing design rules, establish generally acceptable
standards, and define state-of-the-art procedures.
Addressing the Bipolar Character

As we have explained, every design activity is subject to internal reflection
and external action. This explains why architecture, constantly subject to
personal interpretations and external appreciation and validation, is not an
exact science. This bipolar aspect, as explained in Part 1, Chapter 3, consider-
ably impedes the construction of a robust knowledge base. The pragmatic
and heuristic character of design thinking and the fact that this design
thinking is able to create new solutions to traditional problems make the
establishing of such a knowledge base even more difficult. By analyzing both
the product and the process in relation to contextual parameters and from the
individual perspective of each stakeholder, case study research should enable
us to understand the mechanisms of bipolarity and their effect on a particular
architectural intervention. The teaching of architecture in the design studio
is essentially based on making the student aware of this bipolar character. In
the studio, the student is stimulated to critically study precedents, confronted
by faculty members with the consequences of his own design decisions, and
encouraged to practice constant reflection and critical assessment.
Addressing the Transformational Character

This aspect of architectural knowledge is closely connected to the concept of
interdisciplinary collaboration; it involves the confrontation and integration
of divergent knowledge. The act of synthesis, an essential and crucial phase
in the design process, precisely aims to transform these pockets of micro-
knowledge into workable wholes that have meaning and serve purposes. The
discovery of the mechanisms underlying these transformational processes
can only be done through comparative case study research, focusing on the
way that multidisciplinary knowledge can contribute to a greater whole.
215
2 7.2
Case Study Research and the

Building of an Architectural
Knowledge Base
From the above, it is clear that knowledge generated by case study research
will be diverse and belong to different categories and levels. There will be
knowledge generated on the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels. How
can we distinguish between these levels of knowledge, and how can we
transform them into an operational knowledge base?
Building Knowledge on the Syntactic Level

On this level, we are interested in the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of
the architectural language. It is obvious that case study research produces
knowledge on all three aspects. On that basis, robust typologies can be
built. These typologies can relate to building types in relation to function,
form, construction, and materials. The oeuvre of influential and important
architects can be analyzed and catalogued. Architectural firms can get a
comprehensive insight into their working methods, architectural language
used, and internal organization.
Building Knowledge on the Semantic Level

Case study research also produces knowledge concerning the meaning
and context of architectural form in relation to function, construction, and
material. It offers insight into the way architecture represents cultural values
and is an emanation of a socio-economic environment. The understanding
of architectural language as a tool for expressing individual and societal
visions and attitudes regarding the contemporary world is part of that,
as is the ability and knowledge to use architectural elements to create
emotional space.
Building Knowledge on the Pragmatic Level

Case study research allows for the collection of a vast amount of compara-
tive data with respect to the designing and building process in practice. It
illuminates the decision-making process by limning the patterns of argu-
mentation, the persuasive power, and the implications for the built output.
Clients and occupants gain a better understanding of their buildings,
why design decisions were made and how they were put into practice.
216
The result is often an increased feeling of satisfaction, even after years of

using the building. Moreover, case study research produces data concern- 42
Heylighen, A.,
ing a less obvious aspect of the architectural discipline: how clients can be 2000, “In Case
convinced that the proposed concepts and designs by the architect are the of Architectural
Design.”, PhD thesis,
best possible solutions for their problems: in other words, how to sell ideas, University of Leuven,
how to argue that an architectural concept is “right.” Belgium.
To build a true knowledge base for the architectural discipline, it is of

paramount importance to integrate the results of case study research into
a comprehensive, robust, and integrated system of easily accessible infor-
mation on all three levels: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. It should be
an interactive database, which faculty, students, and practitioners can use in
their daily professional work. Information technology, specifically the devel-
opment of more advanced BIM software, could provide for a major leap in
that evolution. While it is not the aim of this book to develop these ideas,
it is worth noticing that in the domain of artificial intelligence, case study
research has always been a special field of interest. In that field, it is called
CBR (Case-based Reasoning) and is used to build cognitive systems, which
computers can use for problem-solving. Little research has been done on how
we might use this approach to develop case-based reasoning in architecture
and integrate it into BIM systems.
One of the few attempts to investigate these possibilities has been
done by Ann Heylighen as part of her PhD. research (2000) 42. She developed
the software tool DYNAMO, an interactive design assistant for architectural
students and professionals, “providing a platform for interaction between
designs and designers in various contexts and at different levels of experience.”
It is clear that case study research cannot be an end in itself, but that the
results must be integrated in a larger body of knowledge. That goal pleads
for further research into the field of information modeling and how these
systems can be successfully applied in architectural practice. The building of
AR-DNA in combination with the notion of concurrent design-built systems,
as I have described in Part 1, Chapter 4, may be a way to do so. But this can
only be successful if we can produce the necessary knowledge to feed these
systems by case study research.
217
2 7.3
The Role of Case Study Research

in Architectural Education
There are two ways of introducing case study research into the curriculum:
43 the passive one, in which the case is prepared and reconstructed by the
Wilson, B.,
1987, Methods of teacher outside the classroom; and the active one, where the students have to
Training: Groupwork, do the actual research work and construct the case themselves.
Parthenon Publishing
Group, Carnforth, The first method is the more classical of the two, used in teaching
England. law, medicine, and business administration. The teacher presents data and
44 aspects of the case to the students for analysis and discussion. The case serves
Kwok, A. and
Grondzik, W., 2003,
as a tool for better understanding practical and experiential knowledge, but is
“Case Studies as already framed in the existing body of knowledge of the discipline.
Research” in Proceed-
ings ARCC Spring
The second approach is based on the active involvement of the
Conference, students in building the case. It involves generating knowledge and trying to
Washington D.C.
contextualize that knowledge in a learning context.
45 According to Bob Wilson, in Methods of Training: Groupwork (1987) 43,
Martin W. et al., 2003,
“Building Stories. such case studies are reconstructions of real life situations examined by one
A Hermeneutic or more students, using problem-solving and decision-making. They involve
Approach to Studying
Design Practice” in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation for the purpose of establishing general
Proceedings of the 5th principles, which are illustrated by the particulars of the case. In “Case
European Academy
of Design Conference, Studies as Research” (2003) 44, Allison Kwok and Walter Grondzik argue that
Barcelona. exactly such an approach would benefit architectural education. The method
of “Building Stories” as it is used at the University of California, Berkeley,
tries to bring these principles into practice (2003) 45. The advantage of doing
a case study in the form of storytelling is that at first glance it seems to be
a natural way in which people share highly complex phenomena which are
not always fully understood. The story format indeed provides a dense and
compact way to deal with these phenomena in a short time. However, it is
usually unable to deal with large quantities of information, and it hardly
distinguishes between the importance of quantifiable and qualitative facts
and how they have contributed to the final design output and building.
Undoubtedly, the active method of case study research is a superior teaching

tool from an educational viewpoint. Based on learning by doing, it produces
an enormous amount of experience and knowledge for students in a very
short time and on the four levels enumerated below.
1 Architectural students learn about the relationship between theory
and practice and the complex way in which they cross-fertilize
218
each other. They learn that architectural theory does not obey the
same methodological laws as a classical scientific theory. They
are stimulated to integrate what they have learned — e.g. in their
architectural theory and history classes — into the analysis of an
actual building. They should try not only to formulate the right
questions to be asked regarding theoretical concepts behind the
design, but should discover its correspondences, inconsistencies,
and contextual barriers. In other words, they start to discover
for themselves the opportunities and the constraints of architec-
tural theory and history in a real world designing and building
situation. This will help them individually to discover the relative
borderline below which a building is “bad” and above which a
building is “good” or can become “better,” architecturally.
2 The reconstruction of the designing and building process as
part of a case study teaches students how the complex mecha-
nisms of decision-making during each stage of that process
have influenced the design result. Students will detect the
important hinge points, where the design turned in a decisive
direction. They can identify at each of these points the leading
stakeholders involved and the often-hidden reasons behind
important decisions. By doing so, they will be able to define
and weigh the direct relationship between process and product.
This part of the case study may be the most difficult for
the students, as practical experience is very important for under-
standing that complex network of relationships determined by
roles played, functions filled, and individual characters and beliefs.
It is therefore important to have teachers with practical experi-
ence themselves and to have an open and honest relation with
the architectural firm and/or architect who was commissioned
and led the project. However, if this part of the case study is
successfully completed, the students have gained an enormous
amount of practical knowledge, which cannot be obtained
through their architectural courses in any other way or in such
a short time. They will not only have had the opportunity to see
a glimpse of hidden decision-making mechanisms but will also
become aware of the fact that the testing of a design hypothesis
is not only contextual in the physical sense but is performed
jointly by a wide variety of parties concerned. Students will
discover that a design process needs to lead to a consensus if the
result is to be built. They will also understand why that building
is a unique artifact shaped by the input of all the participants of
the design team.
219
3 One of the main features of the architectural design process is

its synergetic character. This goes back to the way architects deal
with the interaction of the parts. The constant switching between
analytical and synthetic thinking underlies the heuristic and
intuitive layer of the design process. To get a real insight into
these mechanisms is a difficult endeavor, as the majority of
the design decision-making is done on the basis of experien-
tial knowledge and not on exact scientific arguments. Case
study research, as we have seen, is aimed precisely at the inves-
tigation of how the different design elements form an integral
whole, through looking at the building in a systems view. Active
case study research by the students themselves gives them the
opportunity to investigate the relationships between the elements
as constituent parts, along with the degree of integration of
the several sub-solutions as a measure of architectural quality.
At the same time, students will learn about the design
method of the architect, the representational models he
used during the design inquiry, and to what extent these
models contributed to the overall result.
This aspect of case study research looks, at first sight, to
be a tedious and repetitive operation, but if it is guided well the
result is usually the discovery by the students of a consistent
body of knowledge, which may even transcend the particular
case under investigation. It definitely offers the student general
insight into interactions of the parts and the way experienced
architects deal with them. The architectural process becomes
more transparent, and the judgment of whether a building is
good or bad becomes more objective and arguable.
4 Case study research taught in an active way, as we have described
it, has been shown to be an excellent method for bridging the
gap between the academic and professional worlds, as the
research works both ways. As we have described earlier, the
relation between academia and practice is not always easy, as each
obeys different laws, pursues different goals, and has different
purposes, which are not always compatible.
Case study research, however, brings a considerable
amount of practical and theoretical know-how, built up in practice,
into the school as part of the curriculum, and it takes the school
out into society and the reality of building.
By doing this, case study research is an invaluable tool for
moving into a more congruent situation between practice and
220
education, thus simulating as much as possible the professional

environment of a design studio. It is obvious that subjecting
students to an office-like situation will reduce the gap between
theory and practice. The students will be confronted with the
typical constraints of a real assignment and can discover for them-
selves the tensions between theoretical architectural discourse
and implementation in an actual design environment.
At the same time, it is an answer to the fast pace with
which not only our knowledge is changing. but above all the
context wherein knowledge should be applied. Active case study
research offers data for an evolutionary design process model
based on empirical facts and backed up by a solid methodological
framework.
Maybe the most important contribution of case study research to the archi-
tectural curriculum is that, for the first time during their education, students
get a full overview of the total designing and building process as practiced in
reality. They become immersed in all the complexity of a real design context
and learn how practitioners deal with it. They are able to transcend mere
academic design work and the traditional educational methods used to gain
an understanding of both the management of an architectural office and of a
project. Moreover, they may have personal contact with practicing architects
and important architectural firms. The students can even use these contacts
to look for job opportunities after graduation, and the architectural firms can
check on possible suitable candidates in an informal way. Finally, case study
research offers the student the opportunity to discuss a real project with a real
client and learn from his experiences, and to establish informal contacts with
local authorities on professional matters.
221
2 7.4
The Importance of Case Study

Research for Internship
Internships are another characteristic typical of architectural practice. In
46 almost all countries throughout the world, internships in one form or
Horan, J., 2002,
“The Case Study: A another are required to enter the architectural profession and to be registered
Relationship Between as an architect. Internships are, in many ways, the most significant devel-
the School and the
Profession”, in Pro- opmental period in the architect’s career, applying the knowledge and skills
ceedings of the Case acquired during formal education to the daily realities of an architectural
Study Work Group
Open Meeting, AIA, practice. Internships are about acquiring comprehensive experience in basic
North Carolina State practice areas, exploring specialized areas of practice, developing profes-
University, Raleigh,
North Carolina. sional judgment, continuing formal education in architecture, and refining
47
individual career goals.
Lee, L., (Ed.) 2004a,
Emerging Profession-
al’s Companion, A
It is not always clear, however, how this internship can be optimized in
Resource for Archi- order to most effectively fulfill its goal: preparing a graduated student for
tectural Education
and Experience, AIA-
practice and enabling him to take full responsibilities for his professional
NCARB, Washington acts. Without going into the details of the architectural internship here, it
D.C.
is clear that case study research can play a primary role in this period of an
Lee, L., (Ed.) 2004b, architect’s career.
Case Studies Starter
Kit, AIA, Washington
In a paper delivered in one of the case study work group open meetings
D.C. of the American Institute of Architects (2002) 46, James Horan explained how
the making of a case study is a required part of admission to the profession
in Ireland. It is seen as a bridge between school and the profession, and it is
expected that professional practices provide the young interns with as wide
a range of professional experience as possible. The thorough analysis of a
project is considered fundamental to doing this. The AIA and the National
Council of Architectural Registration Boards are very explicit that becoming
an architect does not end with the diploma but that continuous education is
needed. Within that context, the Emerging Professional’s Companion (EPC),
developed and compiled by Laura Lee (2004) 47 is a recognized tool used to
help interns fully optimize that period. The EPC is a free web-based profes-
sional development resource to improve the quality of internship training.
It challenges interns to develop the awareness, understanding, and skills
needed to achieve the required core competences. The shift from school to
office is seen not as a transition from theory to practice, but as the period
when theory merges with practice. The EPC considers case study research
the major tool by which this may be accomplished.
222
Although the benefit of case study research for the interns themselves is clear,
it also brings considerable benefits to practices that encourage interns to do
case studies about their projects. It offers them an extremely valuable analysis
of their work and insight into their own working methods. Architectural
practice in general has always neglected assessing the outcomes of its
activities, and so is co-responsible for the lack of experiential knowledge to
benefit the profession’s future. Case study research as part of the internship
program begins to break down this mindset and introduces the possibility
of research by design in the architectural office. At the same time it offers a
tool for quality control and improvement strategies.
2 7.5
Case Study Research and

Architectural Practice: Life-long
Learning and the Road to
Scholarship
Continuous change, both on the level of theory and on the level of tech-
nology, has become the steady state of society. So architecture should deal 48
Schön, D.A., 1987,
with this situation. Future architects should learn to cope with change, to The Reflective
design for change, and even be enabled to change their own beliefs. It is from Practitioner, Jossey-
this perspective that the notion of sustainable building should be seen.
Change now underway includes professional attitudes and practical 49
Green, R., 2004,
experience. It involves a methodological approach to architectural design “Case Studies as
that exceeds everyday practice and returns to the very essence of archi- Reflective Practice”,
in Proceedings of the
tectural theory pur sang in relation to the architectural profession and the ACSA/AIA Teachers
latest technologies. It necessitates the permanent questioning of our archi- Seminar, Cranbrook
Academy of Art,
tectural beliefs before they become ideologies. It calls for life-long learning Bloomfield Hills,
and introduces the notion of the reflective practice as advocated by Donald Michigan.
Schön in The Reflective Practitioner (1987) 48.
The architectural firm should develop an almost natural reflex for intro-
ducing in-house case study research as part of the continuing process of
learning. In “Case Studies as Reflective Practice” (2004) 49, Richard Green,
longtime principal and president of one of the largest American architec-
tural firms, argues that case studies must generate two distinctly different
sets of information: measurable information and immeasurable informa-
tion, calling the last one the most important. He especially points to the need
223
to understand and record knowledge about the aspirations of clients and

50 communities and to assess the emotional content of an architectural project.
Malecha, M., 2004,
“The Case Study Well design and orchestrated case study research can give voice to the client’s
in the Practice and aspirations by addressing strategies that are critical to the implementation of
Study of Architec-
ture”, in Case Studies the vision of the project. Finally, Green points out the role case studies can
Starter Kit, (Ed. Lee, play in leadership training.
L.), AIA, Washington
D.C.
51
Every architectural practice has its own culture, working methods, and
Fraker, H., 2004, approach to design problems. It has always been a challenge to transfer this
“Why Case Studies as
Scholarship/Research
culture to a new generation of young associates and possibly future principals
Track” in ACSA/AIA of the firm. Marvin Malecha, in “The Case Study in the Practice and Study
Cranbrook Teacher
Seminar, Cranbrook
of Architecture” (2004) 50, addresses this delicate transformation of an archi-
Academy of Art, tectural firm as one generation is succeeded by another. The development
Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan.
of a tradition of case study research is a paramount tool for accomplishing
this transition in a scholarly way, as it investigates all major aspects of a pro-
fessional firm. The younger generation can start to understand how client
acquisition is done, how design teams can be formed in an effective and
successful way, how a project is managed, and how liabilities are handled
and failures adjusted.
From the above, it is clear that case study research can undoubtedly con-
tribute to the shaping of curricula for continuous professional education.
It offers enormous insight into the complex and often hidden mechanisms
of the architectural and building process in a reasonably short time, and it
can explain how and to what extent the building will be able to cope with a
changing socio-economic and cultural environment. It can offer the building
blocks for AR-DNA, so needed to further develop architecture into scholar-
ship. In “Why Case Studies as Scholarship/Research Track” (2004) 51,
Harrison Fraker asserts that carefully researched and written case studies are
powerful acts of scholarship and analysis, countering the tendency toward
fragmentation of knowledge, and are one of the few ways in which the
wholeness of architectural production can be vividly perceived.
Case study research can be seen as a “flight simulator” for architects, to be

used as a tool for professional training in the office or as an instrument in an
educational environment: a tool for permanent learning. The “architectural
flight simulator” can become an essential training vehicle in every firm and
school of architecture, bridging the gaps between the academic and profes-
sional worlds and between theory and practice.
I have argued extensively that it is exactly this combination that may
hold the keys to a better understanding of individual design methodology,
in both academic and professional environments, and may enable the
224
architect to constantly improve his own design capabilities, resulting in

“better” products. By adopting case study research, we will have taken a
definite step towards the establishment of a general design theory based on
pragmatic thinking, where the unity between the processes of learning and
experience, and between conceptual thought and situational consciousness,
is crucial.
Architectural design is on the crossroads of using scientific theories
in practice and creating knowledge through practice. Case study research is
a more than helpful tool to reveal this interplay and raise it to the level of
scholarship and architectural design theory.
But there is more. Throughout this book I have tried to argue the impor-
tance of elevating architectural design to the level of scholarship and to
give it the status it deserves: a discipline that unites the methods of scientific
and artistic inquiry in a unique approach to investigating reality, the method
of design inquiry. By taking this step, architecture will gain a unique position
among the professional disciplines. Its stature will demonstrate that the
combination of intuitive and rational thinking is the cornerstone for
advancing architectural culture in the world. That will argue for a much-
needed return of an intellectual attitude both in academia and in practice,
based on critical thinking and a consistent ethical value system. Investing
in intellectual capital will be absolutely necessary to provide coming genera-
tions with a rich and sustainable environment. It will be the only way to solve
the paradox of Postmodernity and to initiate a new Renaissance where, to
paraphrase the slogan of Carnegie Mellon University, the left brain meets the
right brain to create innovation with impact.
225
Index
ACCU-A (Architect-Client-User-Authorities) Art Nouveau xx

analysis xx Arts and Crafts Movement xx
Act of Creation, The, by Koestler xx Asimov, M. xx
Action painting xx
Bachelard, Gaston xx
Administrative Behavior, by Simon xx Barrows, Howard xx
Affiche dans la société urbaine, L', Bauhaus, The xx
by Moles xx Bauman, Zigmunt xx
Alexander, Christopher xx Beer, Stafford xx
Alger, John xx Behrens, Peter xx
Age of Enlightenment: Besne, Max xx
see Enlightenment Bill, Max xx
Age of Reason xx BIM (Building Information Modeling) xx
Ahrendt, Hannah xx Biperspectivism xx
AIA (American Institute of Architects) xx Bipolarity xx
AIA Case Study Work Group xx Bohr, Niels xx
Akin, Omer xx Barthes, Roland xx
Alberti, Leon Battista xx Baudrillard, Jean xx
Allen, Edward xx Boullée, Louis xx
American Institute of Architects: Braun-Feldweg, Wilhelm xx
see AIA Broadbent, Geoffrey xx
Applied Imagination, by Osborn xx Buchanan, Richard xx
Archer, Leonard Bruce xx Building Information Modeling;
Architect-Client-User-Authorities analysis: see BIM
see ACCU-A analysis Burie, Jean Baptiste xx
Architectural DNA: see AR-DNA xx
Architectural Practice and Management CAAD (Computer-aided Architectural
Handbook xx Design) system xx
Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Cardozo, Benjamin xx
Science, by Perez-Gomez xx Carnegie Mellon University xx
AR-DNA (Architectural DNA) xx Cartesian: see Descartes xx
Arrowsmith, William xx Cartesian Approach to Design Rationality,
Art & Physics, by Shlain xx A, by Akin xx
227
Index
Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture

by Yin xx française du XIe au XVe siècle, by Viollet-
Case-based Reasoning: le-Duc xx
see CBR Discovering Design: Explorations in Design
CBR (Case-based Reasoning) xx Studies, editors, Buchanan with
Chomsky, Noam xx Margolin xx
CIAM (Congrès International d'Architecture DNA, Architectural:
Moderne) xx see AR-DNA
Cicero, Marcus Tullius xx Dualism (see also Descartes) xx
Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to
Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine xx Eckman, Otto xx
Conditions of Knowledge, by Scheffler xx Edwards, Linda xx
Conference on Design Methods xx Ehrenzweig, Anton xx
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Einstein, Albert xx
Scientific Knowledge, by Popper xx Eisenman, Peter xx
Conrads, Ulrich xx Emerging Professional's Companion xx
Consequences of Modernity, The, by Emerging Professional’s Companion,
Giddens xx a Resource for Architectural Education
Constructivism/Constructivist Art xx and Experience, by Lee xx
Copernicus, Nicholaus xx Encounters, by Pallasmaa xx
Craik, Kenneth xx Engineering Design Methods: Strategies
Creative Synthesis in Design, by Alger and for Product Design, by Cross xx
Hays xx ENHSA (European Network of Heads of
Cross, Nigel xx Schools of Architecture) xx
Cuff, Dana xx Enlightenment xx
Entretiens sur l’architecture, by Viollet-
da Vinci, Leonardo xx le-Duc xx
De Bono, Edward xx EPC:
Decision and Control, by Beer xx see Emerging Professional's
Declerqc, Nico xx Companion
Défaite de la Pensée, La, by Finkielkraut xx Esherick, Joseph xx
De Groot, Adriaan xx Essaies Critiques, by Barthes xx
Dekeyser, Cindy xx Essential Tension: Selected Studies in
Democracy and Education, by Dewey xx Scientific Tradition, The, by Kuhn xx
De Re Aedificatoria, by Alberti xx European Network of Heads of Schools of
Descartes, René, and "Cartesian" xx Architecture: see ENHSA xx
Design and Technology, by Cross xx
Design in Architecture, by Broadbent xx Falsification, Theory of xx
Design Method, The, by Gregory xx Finkielkraut, Alain xx
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future, Florida, Richard xx
by Jones xx Foqué, René xx
Designerly Ways of Knowing, by Cross xx Foqué, Richard xx
Dewey, John xx Fraker, Harrison xx
Friedman, Daniel xx
Furedi, Frank xx
228
Index
Galilei, Galileo xx Jonsen, Albert R. xx

Garvin, David xx Jugendstil xx
Gerring, John xx
Gestalt Psychology xx Kepler, Johannes xx
Gestaltungstheorie xx Koestler, Arthur xx
Giddens, Anthony xx Kuhn, Thomas xx
Ginsburg, Jane xx Kwok, Allison xx
Godard, Jean-Luc xx
Gordon, William xx Langdell, Christopher xx
Gragg, Charles xx Laszlo, Ervin xx
Green, Richard xx Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step,
Gregory, S.A. xx by De Bono xx
Grondzik, Walter xx Lawson, Bryan xx
Gropius, Walter xx Le Corbusier xx
Guba, Egon xx Ledoux, Claude xx
Lee, Laura xx
Habitat aux Cameroun, L', by Office de la Legacy of Gothic Cathedral Building, The,
Récherche Scientifique Outre Mer xx by Owen xx
Hadamard, Jacques xx Legal Methods: Cases and Materials,
Hall, Arthur xx by Ginsburg xx
Harvard Law School xx Legislators and Interpreters:
Hays, Carl xx On Modernity, Postmodernity and
Heisenberg, Werner xx Intellectuals, by Bauman xx
Heylighen, Ann xx Lincoln, Yvonna xx
Hidden Order of Art, The, by Ehrenzweig xx Lynn, Lawrence xx
Higher Institute of Architectural Sciences Lyotard, Jean-François xx
Henry Van de Velde xx
Hochshule für Gestaltung, Ulm xx Machine Age xx
Holmes, Oliver Wendell xx MacKinnon, Donald xx
Horan, James xx Malecha, Marvin xx
How Designers Think, by Lawson xx Margolin, Victor xx
Martin, Roger xx
Industrial Design Heute, by Braun- Martin, W.M. xx
Feldweg xx Martini, Francesco di Giorgio xx
Industrial Revolution xx Mathematical Theory of Communication,
Informatie, een interdisciplinaire studie, The, by Shannon and Weaver xx
by Van Peursen xx Maver, Tom xx
Information Age xx McLuhan, Marshall xx
Introduction to Design, by Asimov xx Metabletische Methode, De,
Introduction to Systems Philosophy: by Parabirsing xx
Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Methodologie, by De Groot xx
Thought, by Laszlo xx Methodology for Systems Engineering, A,
by Hall xx
Jarvis, Peter xx Methods of Training: Group Work,
Jones, John Chris xx by Wilson xx
229
Index
Mies van der Rohe xx Polanyi, Michael xx

Mitchell, C. Thomas xx Popper, Karl xx
Modern Movement xx Post-Modern Condition, The, by Lyotard xx
Moles, Abraham xx Postmodern, Postmodernism,
Mondriaan, Piet xx Postmodernity xx
Morris, William xx Pouillon, Jean xx
Multidisciplinarity xx Practical Case Analysis, by Edwards
Multi-layering xx Practitioner-Researcher, The, by Jarvis xx
Multivariateness xx Pragmatism xx
Pragmatism, an Open Question,
National Council of Architectural by Putnam xx
Registration Boards xx Prigogine, Ilya xx
Nature of Explanation, The, by Craik xx Problem-Based Learning: An Approach
New Architecture and the Bauhaus, The, to Medical Education, by Barrows and
by Gropius xx Tamblyn xx
New Thinking in Design: Conversations Product-Context-Process analysis:
on Theory and Practice, by Mitchell xx see PCP analysis xx
Newton, Isaac xx Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century
Norman, Donald xx Architecture, by Conrads xx
Notes on the Synthesis of Form, by Psychology of Everyday Things,
Alexander xx by Norman xx
Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical
Office de la Récherche Scientifique xx Field, The, by Hademard xx
Outre Mer xx Putnam, Hilary xx
On Becoming a Person, by Rogers xx
Ontwerpsystemen, by Richard Foqué xx Quattro Libri dell’Architettura, I,
Orde uit Chaos, by Prigogine and by Palladio xx
Stengers xx
Organismen, Strukturen, Maschine, Redefining Designing: From Form to
by Wieser xx Experience, by Mitchell xx
Osborn, Alex xx Reflective Practitioner, The, by Schön
Owen, Virginia Lee xx Renaissance xx
Report on Integrated Practice,
Palladio, Andrea xx by Friedman xx
Pallasmaa, Juhani xx Riemerschmid, Richard xx
Pankok, Bernard xx Rise of the Creative Class, The, by Florida xx
Parabirsing, S. xx Rittel, Horst xx
PCP (Product-Context-Process) analysis xx Rogers, Carl xx
Perez-Gomez, Alberto xx Ruskin, John xx
Philosophy of No, The: A Philosophy of the Russell, Barry xx
New Scientific Mind, by Bachelard xx
Piaget, Jean xx Sanders, Ken xx
Pink, Daniel xx Scheffler, Israel xx
Planck, Max xx Schön, Donald xx
Pointillism/Pointillist xx Schrödinger, Erwin xx
230
Index
Sciences of the Artificial, The, Vers une architecture, by Le Corbusier xx

by Simon xx Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène xx
Scientific Revolution xx Vitruvius/Vitruvian xx
Shannon, Claude xx
Shlain, Leonard xx Wagner, Otto xx
Siegler, Mark xx Weaver, Warren xx
Simon, Herbert xx Weber, Max xx
Sleepwalkers, The, by Koestler xx Wheelwright's Shop, The, by Sturt xx
Socratic dialectic method xx Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?
Staw, Barry xx by Furedi xx
Stengers, I. xx Whole New Mind: Moving from the
Structuralisme, Le, by Piaget xx Information Age to the Conceptual Age, A,
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The, by Pink xx
by Kuhn xx Wieser, Wolfgang xx
Sturt, George xx Wilson, Bob xx
Style in Design, by Simon xx Winslade, William J. xx
Surrealism/Surrealist xx
Sutton, Robert xx Yin, Robert xx
Synectics: the Development of Creative
Capacity, by Gordon xx
Système des Objets, Le, by Baudrillard xx
Tacit Dimension, by Polanyi xx

Tamblyn, Robin xx
Teaching & Learning With Cases, by Lynn xx
Ten Books on Architecture, by Vitruvius xx
Theorie der Texte. Eine Einführung in
neuere Auffassungen und Methoden,
by Bense xx
Thornley, D.G. xx
Timeless Way of Building, A,
by Alexander xx
Towards an Architecture, by
Le Corbusier:
see Vers une architecture
Trattato di Architettura, by Martini xx
Tschumi, Bernard xx
by McLuhan xx
Van de Velde, Henry xx

Van Peursen, C.A. xx
Variety/Uniqueness Matrix xx
231
References
Akin, O., 2006, A Cartesian Approach to Asimow, M., 1962, Introduction to Design,
Design Rationality, Meta University Press, Prentice Hall, New York.
Ankara.
Bachelard, G., 1968, The Philosophy of
Alexander, C., 1964, Notes on the Synthesis of No: A Philosophy of the New Scientific Mind,
Form, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Orion Press, New York.
Massachusetts.
Barrows, H., and Tamblyn, R., 1980,
Alexander, C., 1977, A Pattern Language, Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to
Oxford University Press, New York. Medical Education, Springer, New York.
Alexander, C., 1979, A Timeless Way of Barthes, R., 1964, Essais Critiques, Gallimard,
Building, Oxford University Press, New York. Paris.
Alger, J. and Hays C., 1964, Creative Synthesis Baudrillard, J., 1968, Le Système des Objets,
in Design, Prentice Hall, New York. Gallimard, Paris.
Allen, E., 2008, “How to Make Technical Bauman, Z., 1989, Legislators and Interpreters:
Courses More Relevant”, in Design Intelligence On Modernity, Post-Modernity and Intellectuals,
2008, Greenway Communications, Norcross, paperback edition, Polity Press, Cambridge,
Georgia. England.
Archer, B., 1963–64, “A Systematic Method Beer, S., 1994, Decision and Control, John
for Designers” in Design, April 1963, Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England.
Aug. 1963, Nov. 1963, Jan. 1964, May 1964,
Aug. 1964. Bense, M., 1962, Theorie der Texte. Eine
Einführung in neuere Auffassungen und
Arendt, H., 1968, “The Crisis in Culture: Methoden, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Cologne.
its Social and its Political Significance.”
In Between Past and Future. Eight Exercises Braun-Feldweg, W., 1966, Industrial Design
in Political Thought, Viking Press, New York. Heute, Rowohlt, Hamburg.
Arrowsmith, W., 1970, “The Creative Broadbent, G., 1973, Design in Architecture,
University” in Creativity (ed. Roslansky, J.), John Wiley & Sons, London and New York.
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
233
References
Broadbent, G., 1976, “The Development of De Bono, E., 1970, Lateral Thinking:
Design Methods”, in Ontwerpmethodieken 12, Creativity Step by Step, Harper & Row,
(Eds. Foqué, R.K.V., Huybrechts, J., and London.
Putter, H.), Delft University, Delft,
The Netherlands. Declercq, N. and Dekeyser, C., 2007,
“Acoustic Diffraction Effects at the Hellen-
Buchanan, R., and Margolin, V. (Eds.), 1995, istic Amphitheater of Epidaurus”, in
Discovering Design: Explorations in Design The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
Studies, The University of Chicago Press, America, nr. 121(4), New York.
Chicago.
De Groot, A.D., 1972, Methodologie, Mouton
Burie, J.B., 1978, “Het gedrag van organis- & Co, The Hague, The Netherlands.
aties in het bouwproces”, in Handboek
Bouwen en Wonen, Van Loghum Slaterus, Dewey, J., 1923, Democracy and Education,
Deventer, The Netherlands. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Conrads, U., 1993, Programs and Manifestoes Donald, A., 1983, “Some Observations on
on 20th-Century Architecture, MIT Press, Mental Models” in Mental Models, (Eds.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Gentner, D., and Stevens, A.), Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Copernicus, N., De Revolutionibus
Orbium Coelestium. First printed in 1543, Edwards, L., 1996, Practical Case Analysis,
Nuremberg, Germany. English edition: West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota.
1976, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Ehrenzweig, A., 1970, The Hidden Order of
Spheres, Barnes and Noble, New York.
Art, Paladin, London.
Craik, K., 1943, The Nature of Explanation,
ENHSA, 2007, Profile of the Graduates from
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
European Schools of Architecture: an Inquiry
England.
on the Competences and Learning Outcomes,
Cross, N., 1975, Design and Technology, EAAE-internal document, Leuven, Belgium.
The Open University Press, Milton Keynes,
Esherick, J., 1963, “Problems of the Design
England.
of a Design System” in Conference on
Cross, N., 2001, Engineering Design Methods: Design Methods, (Eds. Jones and Thornley),
Strategies for Product Design, John Wiley & Pergamon Press, London.
Sons, New York.
Finkielkraut, A., 1987, La Défaite de la
Cross, N., 2006, Designerly Ways of Knowing, Pensée, Gallimard, Paris.
Springer-Verlag Ltd., London.
Florida, R., 2002, The Rise of the
Cuff, D., 1989, “Through the Looking Glass: Creative Class, Basic Books, Cambridge,
Seven New York Architects and Their Massachusetts.
People” in Architects’ People (Eds. Russell, E.,
Foqué, R.G.M.E., 1990, Instrumentaliteit
and Cuff, D.), Oxford University Press,
en Rechtsbescherming, Kluwer, Antwerp.
New York.
234
References
Foqué, R.G.M.E., 1994, “De Legitimiteits- Foqué, R.K.V., 1996a, “Design Research:
crisis van het Publieke Bestel” in Vernieuwing The Third Way”, in Doctorates in Design and
en Eerste Kamer; Een Reflectie op het Openbare Architecture, Vol. 1, Delft University Press,
Bestuur vanuit de ‘Chambre de Réflexion’ Delft, The Netherlands.
(Ed. C. Baljé), Sdu Uitgeverij, The Hague,
The Netherlands. Foqué, R.K.V., 1996b, "In Search of a
Scientific Status of Design Research”
Foqué, R.G.M.E., 1998, “Global Governance in Doctorates in Design and Architecture,
and the Rule of Law” in International Law, Vol. I, Delft University Press, Delft, The
Theory and Practice, (Ed. K. Wellens), Kluwer Netherlands.
Law International, Amsterdam.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1999b, Architects for
Foqué, R.G.M.E., 2007, Personal Commun- Health Open Lecture at RIBA, London,
ication, Leuven, Belgium. unpublished.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1971a, “Socio-Technology Foqué, R.K.V., 2001a, “On the True Meaning
or Solving the Paradox” in Wetenschap en of Research by Design” in Proceedings of
Samenleving, nr. 25, Amsterdam. the International Conference on Research by
Design, Delft University Press, Delft, The
Foqué, R.K.V., 1971b, “Towards an Evolu- Netherlands.
tionary Integrated CAAD System”, in CAAD
(Ed. M. Daru), Bouwcentrum, Rotterdam. Foqué, R.K.V., 2001b, “Notes on Re-integrat-
ing Theory and Practice in Architectural
Foqué, R.K.V., 1972, “Creativity is Power” in Education”, in Transactions on Architectural
The Architectural Association Quarterly, nr. 4, Education N°11, (Ed. N. Caglar), EAAE,
London. Leuven, Belgium.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1975, Ontwerpsystemen, Foqué, R.K.V., 2003, “The Case Study as an
Het Spectrum, Utrecht, The Netherlands, Extension into Scholarship and Research”,
and Antwerp. in Proceedings of the Case Study Work Group,
Open Meeting 3, AIA, San Francisco.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1982, “Beyond Design
Methods: Arguments for a Practical Design Fraker, H., 2004, “Why Case Studies as
Theory”, in Changing Design (Eds. Evans, B., Scholarship/Research Track” in ACSA /AIA
Powell, J., and Talbot, R.), John Wiley & Cranbrook Teacher Seminar, Cranbrook
Sons, New York. Academy of Art, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1985, “Design participation: Friedman, D, 2004, “In Any Case: Ten
The Medium and the Message”, in Design Questions for the Large Firm Round Table”,
Coalition Team, Vol. 3, Eindhoven University ACSA/AIA Cranbrook Teacher Seminar,
of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield
Hills, Michigan.
Foqué, R.K.V., 1988, “Het Bouwproces” in
Management Non Profit 4, Kluwer, Antwerp Friedman, D., 2006, “Architectural Educa-
and Amsterdam. tion and Practice on the Verge” in Report
on Integrated Practice, American Institute
of Architects, Washington D.C.
235
References
Furedi, F., 2004, Where Have All the Guba, E., and Lincoln, Y., 1981, Effective
Intellectuals Gone?, Continuum, London Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of
and New York. Evaluation Results Through Responsive
and Naturalistic Approaches, Jossey-Bass,
Garvin, D., 2003, “Making the Case: San Francisco.
Professional Education for the World of
Practice”, in Harvard Magazine, Vol. 106, Hadamard, J., 1945, The Psychology of
Number 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Invention in the Mathematical Field,
Princeton University Press, Princeton,
Gerring, J., 2004, “What Is a Case Study New Jersey
and What Is It Good For?”, in American
Political Science Review, Vol. 98, N° 2. Hall, A., 1962, A Methodology for Systems
Engineering, Van Nostrand, New York.
Gerring, J., 2007, Case Study Research,
Principles and Practices, Cambridge Heylighen, A., 2000, “In Case of Archi-
University Press, Cambridge, England. tectural Design.”, PhD thesis, University
of Leuven, Belgium.
Giddens, A., 1990, The Consequences of
Modernity, Stanford University Press, Horan, J., 2002, “The Case Study: A
Palo Alto, California. Relationship Between the School and the
Profession”, in Proceedings of the Case Study
Ginsburg, J.C., 1996, Legal Methods: Work Group Open Meeting, AIA, North
Cases and Materials, Foundation Press, Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Westbury, New York. Carolina.
Gordon W., 1961, Synectics: the Develop- Jarvis, P., 1999, The Practitioner-Researcher,
ment of Creative Capacity, Harper & Row, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
New York
Jones, J., and Thornley, D., 1963, Conference
Gragg, C.I., 1954, “Because Wisdom Can’t on Design Methods, Pergamon Press, London.
Be Told”, in The Case Method at the Harvard
Business School, (Ed. McNair, M., and Jones, J., 1970, Design Methods: Seeds
Hirsum, A.), McGraw-Hill, New York. of Human Future, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Green, R., 2004, “Case Studies as Reflective
Practice”, in Proceedings of the ACSA /AIA Jonsen, A.R., Siegler M., and Winslade,
Teachers Seminar, Cranbrook Academy of W.J., 1998, Clinical Ethics: A Practical
Art, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical
Medicine, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gregory, S., 1966, The Design Method,
Butterworths, London. Kepler, J., Mysterium Cosmographicum.
First printed in 1596, Tübingen, Germany.
Gropius, W., 1935, The New Architecture English edition: 1981, Mysterium
and the Bauhaus, Faber and Faber, London. Cosmographicum,Abaris Books, New York.
Kepler, J., Astronomia Nova. First printed in

1609, Prague, English edition: 1992, New
Astronomy, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
236
References
Kepler, J., Harmonice Mundi. First printed McKinnon, D.W., 1970, “Creativity, a
in 1619, Linz, Austria.English edition: 1997, Multi-faceted Phenomenon”, in Creativity,
The Harmony of the World, The American a Discussion at the Nobel Conference,
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, (Ed. Roslansky), Stockholm-Amsterdam.
PA. Koestler, A., 1959, The Sleepwalkers, Malecha, M., 2004, “The Case Study in
Hutchinson, London. the Practice and Study of Architecture”,
in Case Studies Starter Kit, (Ed. Lee, L.),
Koestler, A., 1964, The Act of Creation, AIA, Washington D.C.
Hutchinson, London.
Martin W. et al., 2003, “Building Stories.
Kuhn, T., 1970, The Structure of Scientific A Hermeneutic Approach to Studying
Revolutions, The University of Chicago Design Practice” in Proceedings of the 5th
Press, Chicago. European Academy of Design Conference,
Barcelona.
Kuhn, T., 1977, The Essential Tension: Selected
Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Maver, T.,1970, “Appraisal in the Building
University of Chicago Press, Chicago Design Process” in Emerging Methods
in Environmental Design and Planning
Kwok, A. and Grondzik, W., 2003, “Case
(Ed. Moore, G.), MIT Press, Cambridge,
Studies as Research” in Proceedings ARCC
Massachusetts.
Spring Conference, Washington D.C.
McLuhan, M., 1967, Understanding Media,
Laszlo, E., 1972, Introduction to Systems
Sphere Books Ltd., London; also 1994,
Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of
Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man,
Contemporary Thought, Gordon & Breach
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Science Publishers, New York.
Mitchell C., 1993, Redefining Designing: from
Lawson, B., 1980, How Designers Think,
Form to Experience, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
The Architectural Press Ltd., London.
New York.
Le Corbusier, 1923, Vers une Architecture,
Mitchell, C., 1996, New Thinking in Design:
Editions Crès, Paris.
Conversations on Theory and Practice,
Lee, L., (Ed.) 2004a, Emerging Professional’s Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Companion, A Resource for Architectural
Moles, A., 1969, L’Affiche dans la société
Education and Experience, AIA-NCARB,
urbaine, Dunod, Paris.
Washington D.C.
Norman, D., 1988, The Psychology of Everyday
Lee, L., (Ed.) 2004b, Case Studies Starter Kit,
Things, Basic Books, New York (reissued,
AIA, Washington D.C.
2002, as The Design of Everyday Things,
Lynn, L.E., 1999, Teaching & Learning with MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
Cases, Chatham House Publishers, New York
Office de la Récherche Scientifique Outre-
and London.
Mer, 1952, L’Habitat aux Cameroun, Paris.
Lyotard, J.F., 1985, The Post-Modern
Osborn, A., 1957, Applied Imagination,
Condition, The University of Minnesota
Charles Scribner, New York.
Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
237
References
Owen, V., 1989, “The Legacy of Gothic Putnam, H., 1995, Pragmatism: an Open
Cathedral Building” in Journal of Cultural Question, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
Economics, Vol. 13, Nr. 1, Springer, Dortrecht, England, and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Netherlands.
RIBA, 1965, Architectural Practice and
Pallasmaa, J., 2005, Encounters, Raken- Management Handbook, RIBA Publications,
nustieto Oy, Helsinki. London.
Pallasmaa, J., 2007, “The Space of Time – Rittel, H., 1972, “Interview” in DMG-
Mental Time in Architecture” in The Antwerp Occasional Paper nr. 1, Berkeley, California.
Design Sciences Cahiers, Nr. 17, Henry Van de
Velde College of Design Sciences, Antwerp. Rogers, C., 1961, On Becoming a Person,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Parabirsing, S., 1974, De Metabletische
Methode, Boom, Meppel, The Netherlands. Russell, B., 1995, “Paradigms Lost: Para-
digms Regained”, in Educating Architects,
Perez-Gomez, A., 1990, Architecture and (Eds. Pearce, M., and Toy, M.), Academy
the Crisis of Modern Science, MIT Press, Editions, London.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Sanders, K., 2004, “Why Building Infor-
Piaget, J., 1968, Le Structuralisme, Presses mation Technology is not Working” in
Universitaires de France, Paris. Architectural Record 09, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Piaget, J., 1970, “La pluridisciplinarité et
l’interdisciplinarité dans les universités”, Scheffler, I., 1965, Conditions of Knowledge,
in Le Monde, 10 Sept., Paris. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Pink, D.H., 2005, A Whole New Mind: Schön, D.A., 1987, The Reflective Practitioner,
Moving from the Information Age to the Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Conceptual Age, Riverhead Books, New York.
Shannon, C., and Weaver, W., 1949,
Polanyi, M., 1966, The Tacit Dimension, The Mathematical Theory of Communication,
Doubleday & Company Inc., New York. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
Illinois.
Popper, K.R., 1959, The Logic of Scientific
Discovery, Hutchinson, London. Shlain, L., 1991, Art & Physics, Harper
Perennial, New York.
Popper, K.R., 1963, Conjectures and Refu-
tations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Simon, H., 1969, Administrative Behavior,
Routledge, London. Macmillan, New York.
Pouillon, J., 1960, “Présentation: un essai Simon, H., 1971, “Style in Design”, in
de définition” in Les Temps Modernes, Vol. 22, Proceedings 2nd EDRA Conference.
Paris.
Simon, H., 1996, The Sciences of the
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. 1985. Orde uit Artificial, 3rd Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge,
Chaos, Bert Bakker, Amsterdam. Massachusetts.
238
References
Sturt, G., 1923 (first edition), 1963 (first

paperback edition), The Wheelwright’s Shop,
Cambridge University Press, London,
New York.
Sutton, R., and Staw, B., 1995, “What Theory

Is Not.”, in Administrative Science Quarterly,
N° 40.
Tschumi, B., 1995, “One, Two, Three: Jump”,

in Educating Architects, (Ed. Pearce, M. and
Toy, M.), Academy Editions, London.
Van Peursen, C.A., 1968, Informatie, een

interdisciplinaire studie, Het Spectrum,
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Vitruvius, M., around 30 BC, De Architectura

Libri Decem, translated by Morgan, M.,
1941, The Ten Books on Architecture, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Wieser, W., 1959, Organismen, Strukturen,

Maschinen, Rowohlt, Frankfurt.
Wilson, B., 1987, Methods of Training:

Groupwork, Parthenon Publishing Group,
Carnforth, England.
Yin, R.K., 2003, Case Study Research: Design

and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, California.
239
Published by UPA
UPA is an imprint of ASP nv
(Academic and Scientific Publishers nv)
Ravensteingalerij 28
B-1000 Brussels
Tel. ++ 32 2 289 26 50
Fax ++ 32 2 289 26 59
info@aspeditions.be
www.upa-editions.be
Editor
John Morris Dixon
Design
Samantha Haedrich
Printing
Van der Poorten, Kessel–Lo
All figures courtesy of the author.
© 2010 Richard Foqué and UPA

(University Press Antwerp)
With the support of Artesis University

College, Antwerp.
All rights reserved. No parts of this book may

be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher and the author.
ISBN 978 90 5487 545 1

NUR 648
Legal Deposit D/2010/11.161/063

Método Foque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Método Foque

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Método Foque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building

John Fowles, 1964, The Aristos, 9.59.

1.1 The Legacy of Enlightenment 17

2 Science, Art and Design:

2.1 The Method of Scientific Inquiry 31

3 The Nature of Design Activity 48

3.1 The Emergence of a Design Discipline 49

4.1 The Use of Models as a Tool for Architectural Inquiry 103

5.1 Making a Case: Investing in Human Capital 145

6 A General Method for Case Project

6.1 Defining the Case Type 190

7 Building Knowledge through

7.1 Case Study Research as an Engine for Architectural

References and Literature 226

The four-meter-high bronze statue is representing the artist himself, standing on a

As a participant in architectural competitions, I have always been astonished by the

In my own practice, I have endeavored to use my professional experience and accumu-

largest architectural firms in Flanders, by my teaching and research on design theory

I wish to express my gratitude to the Artesis University College, member of the

Niels Bohr, 1922, Noble Prize in Physics

The Age of Enlightenment refers to the primary philosophical movement

managerial problems, necessitating more administrators and administrative

The Paradox of Postmodernity

More important, however, is to differentiate between Postmodernism and

The problem for Postmodern man, however, is that culture in the

— the act of reflecting on what we do and think — is an important key to

and scientific thinking into a comprehensive epistemological framework?

Does that mean that micro-specialization is no longer necessary or that

world as a generator of basic research problems and a source of data,” as

The Position of the Professional

To further investigate the role of the professional disciplines in this process,

For the moment it is important to elaborate on this tendency for

The Divorce of Art and Science

“humanistic” thinking into “technical” thinking, in which functionalism and

In an earlier essay, “Creativity is Power” (1972) 16, I discussed at length how

to Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts, as propounded in The Structure

Albert Einstein, 1921, Nobel Prize in Physics

The Method of Scientific Inquiry

The distinction between observational recordings and the formulation of a

criteria derived from that viewpoint. Therefore it is inevitable that during

Popper’s theory on scientific inquiry is associated with the positivist

The Method of Artistic Inquiry

self-expression, and communication is the essential cornerstone of artistic

Artistic inquiry deals with immeasurable parameters and intuitively-made

The fine arts — especially the development of painting in Western culture —

incompatibility between function and form, utility and experience, necessity

The Creative Process in Time

progress is made. Thinking here takes place on a strong and

The Method of Design Inquiry

survival. Here technology comes in, or what are commonly referred to as

Design thinking is per se innovative, heuristic, and experimental, driven by

Definitions of design are numerous, varied, many-sided, and divergent. But

Such an approach involves the use of argumentative and rhetorical means

relies on the methodologies of both science and art. Understanding how

the existing world

Scientific Research Research by Design Artistic Production

Observation Observation Observation

One Hypothesis Multiple Hypotheses Individual Hypothesis

Testing Testing Testing Pointless