The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT
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.
设计的组合:建筑师与英国晚年生活设施中的实体个人和虚拟集体合作时的实践模式
建筑师实践的特点是,他们对缺乏自主权逐渐感到不安,而最近的专业领导者则倾向于与其他职业(如承包商和开发商)建立联系的工作方式所带来的好处,而不是边界保护。我们通过对英国从事晚年住宅设施设计的建筑师进行研究,对建筑师进行半结构式访谈,并对两个建筑项目进行人种学实地考察,从而对此进行探讨。我们的研究表明,建筑师在他们的交叉点上体验到了两个轴线上的主要利益相关者:"虚拟-实体 "和 "个人-集体"。设施的最终用户(居民、员工)更多地以虚拟(抽象)而非具象(有形、可见)的形式出现,以集体而非个人("虚拟集体")的形式出现。与此相对应的是,他们与客户(设施所有者、开发商)、建筑承包商和规划师的接触往往是以具体的形式而不是虚拟的形式进行的,是以个体的形式而不是以集体的形式进行的(作为 "具体的个体")。我们探讨了 "实践模式 "对建筑师的影响,"实践模式 "的广义定义是指某件事情发生、完成或体验的方式。我们发现,"具身个体 "促进了一种 "依赖性和偶然性 "的实践模式,在这种模式下,利益相关者往往有更大的影响力,而 "虚拟社区 "则促成了一种 "自主性和个人艺术性 "的实践模式。然而,"具体的个人 "和 "虚拟的集体 "是相互影响的,而不是独立的关系;也就是说,它们在建筑师的工作中相互影响,有时甚至是相互冲突的。对建筑师如何驾驭这种关系的分析,有助于从建筑师的角度理解建筑是如何发展的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信