The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK
Ellen Annandale, Sarah Nettleton, Daryl Martin, Christina Buse, Siân Beynon-Jones
{"title":"The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK","authors":"Ellen Annandale, Sarah Nettleton, Daryl Martin, Christina Buse, Siân Beynon-Jones","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joae013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Architects’ practice is characterized by a narrative of progressive unease about lack of autonomy coupled with a recent steer from professional figureheads towards the benefits of connected ways of working with other occupations, such as contractors and developers, rather than boundary protection. We explore this through a study of UK architects working on residential facilities for later life, involving semi-structured interviews with architects and ethnographic fieldwork of two building projects followed over time. We show that architects experience key stakeholders in their intersection on two axes: as ‘virtual-embodied’ and ‘individual(s)-collective(s)’. Facility end-users (residents, staff) are encountered more commonly in virtual (abstract) than in embodied (tangible, visible) form, and as collectives rather than as individuals (as ‘virtual collectives’). In juxtaposition, they tend to encounter clients (facility owners, developers), building contractors, and planners in embodied rather than virtual form and as individuals rather than as collectives (as ‘embodied individuals’). We explore the consequences for architects’ ‘practice modalities’, broadly defined as how something happens, is done, or is experienced. We show that ‘embodied individuals’ foster a practice modality of ‘dependency and contingency’ where stakeholders tend to have more sway, whereas ‘virtual communities’ enable a practice modality of ‘autonomy and personal artistry’. However, ‘embodied individuals’ and ‘virtual collectives’ are mutually informing rather than independent sets of relationships; that is, they bear on each other during the architect’s work, sometimes in challenging, even conflicting, ways. An analysis of how architects navigate this helps to understand how a build evolves as it does from architects’ perspectives.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joae013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Architects’ practice is characterized by a narrative of progressive unease about lack of autonomy coupled with a recent steer from professional figureheads towards the benefits of connected ways of working with other occupations, such as contractors and developers, rather than boundary protection. We explore this through a study of UK architects working on residential facilities for later life, involving semi-structured interviews with architects and ethnographic fieldwork of two building projects followed over time. We show that architects experience key stakeholders in their intersection on two axes: as ‘virtual-embodied’ and ‘individual(s)-collective(s)’. Facility end-users (residents, staff) are encountered more commonly in virtual (abstract) than in embodied (tangible, visible) form, and as collectives rather than as individuals (as ‘virtual collectives’). In juxtaposition, they tend to encounter clients (facility owners, developers), building contractors, and planners in embodied rather than virtual form and as individuals rather than as collectives (as ‘embodied individuals’). We explore the consequences for architects’ ‘practice modalities’, broadly defined as how something happens, is done, or is experienced. We show that ‘embodied individuals’ foster a practice modality of ‘dependency and contingency’ where stakeholders tend to have more sway, whereas ‘virtual communities’ enable a practice modality of ‘autonomy and personal artistry’. However, ‘embodied individuals’ and ‘virtual collectives’ are mutually informing rather than independent sets of relationships; that is, they bear on each other during the architect’s work, sometimes in challenging, even conflicting, ways. An analysis of how architects navigate this helps to understand how a build evolves as it does from architects’ perspectives.