reading discussion

wsa543

Architectural_Research_Methods_----_Chapter_7_Qualitative_Research.pdf

Home >Architecture and Design homework help >reading discussion

215

C h a p t e r 7

Qualitative Research

7 . 1 I n t R o d u c t I o n

In her influential and classic book, Architecture: The Story of Practice, Dana Cuff provides in‐depth descriptions and analyses of architectural practice.1 Throughout the book, she recounts in great detail the many interactions and processes that ar- chitects experience on a daily basis. With these observations as a foundation, she brings to light many of the underlying contradictions of the profession. These in- clude, for example, the profession’s tendency to celebrate the creative talent of the individual architect, even while most architects work in collaborative settings to bring to life complex building projects.

In introducing her study, Cuff describes in considerable detail how she went about her research. First and foremost, she persuaded three Bay Area firms to let her observe and participate in the life of the firm over a six‐month period. In these settings, she ob- served meetings, interviewed firm members, participated in casual conversations, and took part in many informal social activities (see Figure 7.1). Throughout these interac- tions, Cuff maintained two important principles: (1) that she sought to understand the dynamics of the profession from the point of view of the participants; and (2) that, at the same time, such insiders’ perspectives had to be balanced by her “outsider’s obser- vations.”2 But while Cuff insists on grounding her work in the empirical reality of her observations, she also highlights the role of interpretation and meaning. As she puts it:

Philosophically, what I value . . . is [a] rejection of positivist notions of the social world, embracing interpretation, meaning in context, interaction, and the quality of the commonplace.3

Wang, David, and Linda N. Groat. Architectural Research Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rit/detail.action?docID=1166322. Created from rit on 2020-09-13 16:55:03.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

216 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

In her dissertation study, Donna Wheatley has investigated the extent to which the alignment between the spatial qualities of workplaces and intentional corporate branding has been achieved from the perspectives of different stake- holder groups.4 This is a topic of significant interest for architects and designers who regularly grapple with how to embody the goals and values of corporate cli- ents in built form, through spatial qualities suitable for both the culture of the or- ganization and the work practices and sensibilities of the employees. As Wheatley pointedly states:

[A]ligning spatial qualities of workplaces with corporate branding is an explic- itly practiced strategy. [T]here is often the expectation for architects to inte- grate corporate values into their designs with the expectation that users will respond in a favorable way to the clients. However, there is little in the way of studies that examine the success [of such a design strategy].5

Given the global prevalence of corporate branding, Wheatley selected six major projects designed by architects in Australia, China, and Great Britain (see Figure 7.2). Since her research question fundamentally centers on the interpre- tive sensibilities and experience of the various stakeholders (architects, client, and users), Wheatley sought a research design that would elicit each individual’s

Figure 7.1 Architects, clients, and consultants meeting an essential aspect of the design process. Courtesy of Kevin M. Daly.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 217

interpretations of the environment in their own terms. For this reason, she devel- oped an in‐depth interview protocol employing sets of visual images that would elicit the participants’ metaphoric associations their workplace—categories of images that included art, interiors, sculpture, food, color, and so on. Participants at each site were asked to select one or two images from each set of image catego- ries that reflected their feelings about the design and experience of the work- place. In addition to being asked to sort these selected images into groupings meaningful to them, participants were also asked to select specific images in re- sponse to more focused questions.6 The resulting interview texts were then

Figure 7.2 Case 1 located in Shanghai, China: exterior view and open meeting space (7.2a and b); and Case 2 located in Sydney, Australia: exterior view and significant interior space (7.2c and d). Courtesy of Donna Wheatley.

(a) (b)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

218 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

coded for every expressed association between environmental qualities and par- ticipant interpretations.7

7 . 2 t h e S t R at e g y o f Q u a l I tat I v e R e S e a R c h : g e n e R a l c h a R a c t e R I S t I c S

What both the Cuff and the Wheatley studies have in common is that they can be categorized as qualitative research. Although this research design can actually be manifested in a variety of formats, several common attributes can be identified. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, authors of a highly regarded, three‐volume handbook on qualitative research, offer the following “generic” definition of quali- tative research:

Qualitative research is multi‐method in focus, involving an interpretive, natural- istic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials.8

Another feature of qualitative research that is also frequently cited in the research methods literature is an underlying emphasis on an inductive process. Creswell describes this tendency in the following way:

[W]e ask open‐ended research questions . . . , shaping the questions after we “explore. . . . Our questions change during the process of research to reflect an increased understanding of the problem.9

Five key components of qualitative research, articulated in the previous quota- tions, can be identified. We will consider each of them in turn, using examples from architectural research to illustrate these points.

7.2.1 An Emphasis on Natural Settings

By “natural settings” is meant that the objects of inquiry are not removed from the venues in which they typically exist as part of everyday life. Cuff ’s primary material came from her in‐depth observations and interactions at three architectural firms over a six‐month period of time. In the Wheatley study, the value of the research lies in its ability to uncover the similarities and differences in the interpretations of the various stakeholder groups in each of the six workplaces studied. In both of these

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 219

cases, the researchers used research tactics that engaged people within the context being studied, while the context itself was studied in its natural state.

7.2.2 A Focus on Interpretation and Meaning

In both the Cuff and the Wheatley studies, the authors not only ground their work in the empirical realities of their observations and interviews, but they also make clear that they, as researchers, play an important role in interpreting and making sense of that data. To reiterate one of Cuff ’s points (quoted earlier), she intentionally employs methodological practices that embrace interpretation and meaning in context. Similarly, Wheatley notes that the in‐depth engagement with participants fostered communication and understanding, while the de- tailed coding process of the interview texts fundamentally depended on her in- terpretive skills.10

7.2.3 A Focus on How the Respondents Make Sense of Their Own Circumstances

In the descriptions of the Cuff and Wheatley studies, it is clear that the research- ers aim to present a holistic portrayal of the setting or phenomenon under study as the respondents themselves understand it. Cuff, for example, offers extensive and detailed descriptions of interactions among the multiple players in client meetings. Similarly, an essential aspect of Wheatley’s study is to explore each participant’s interpretation of the workplace in his/her own terms; this includes elucidating the extent to which the various stakeholders’ understandings con- verge, or not.

In another exemplar of qualitative research, Linda Groat and Sherry Ahrentzen conducted a series of in‐depth interviews with faculty women in architecture, the results of which were published in the Journal of Architectural Education.11 For their part, Groat and Ahrentzen specifically sought to understand faculty women’s per- ceptions in terms of three aspects of their experiences in architecture: their attrac- tions to architecture as a career; their experience of either discrimination or encouragement both in practice and as faculty members; and their visions for the future of architectural education.

7.2.4 The Use of Multiple Tactics

Denzin and Lincoln refer to this characteristic of qualitative research as bricolage, and the research as bricoleur. A bricolage is “a pieced‐together, close‐knit set of practices that provide solutions to a problem in a concrete situation.”12 The idea of bricolage implicitly suggests that qualitative researchers will employ a range of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

220 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

tactics that are both particular to the context being studied, and of course appropri- ate to the research question(s) being asked.

A good example of a multitactic qualitative study may be seen in Karen Keddy’s study of the experience of a hospital surgical unit from the perspective of the nurs- ing staff. Keddy sought to conduct research that would serve as an antidote to the prevalent tendency in health care research to focus primarily on operational effi- ciency. Rather than focusing on how nursing staff ’s productivity might be increased through design interventions, Keddy sought to provide a more holistic understand- ing of “the physical nature of nursing work and the physical environment from the nurses’ perspective.”13

To explore these issues, Keddy employed a wide variety of tactics, including structured, in‐depth interviews, location mapping, photo‐documentation, architec- tural inventories, place‐centered behavioral mapping, and focused observations, and an image‐based visual exercise called an “experiential collage.”14 The intention of the collage exercise (see Figure 7.3), conducted after the initial interview, was to elicit “insights into how a nurse actually feels about what she thinks and what she does as well as what it means to her . . . , a means of making different perspectives about the socio‐spatial nature of nursing work visible.”15

Taken together, this set of data collection tactics focuses not so much on quan- tities of easily measured and known activities, but on the experiential qualities and conceptualizations of the nurses’ work. As a result, this study was able to reveal the “hidden activities many nurses perform which are not measured or even included in such inventories as work sampling.”16

To be sure, not all qualitative research studies rely on such a diverse array of tac- tics to investigate the research question. However, even in research studies where one primary mode of inquiry is used, secondary tactics are typically employed. For ex- ample, although Cuff depended primarily on fieldwork observations of three differ- ent firms especially in work meetings (documented in 600 pages of notes), she also interviewed firm members, chatted casually with people, did drafting and other work activities, and participated in many informal activities with firm members.17 Similarly, although Groat and Ahrentzen’s research on faculty women depended extensively on an in‐depth interview protocol of key questions and optional follow‐up questions, the authors also incorporated insights from an earlier quantitative survey question- naire and archival statistics from the national architectural faculty organization.18

7.2.5 Significance of Inductive Logic

As Creswell argues in a quotation cited earlier in the chapter, the research questions investigated through a qualitative study frequently evolve in an iterative process.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 221

Figure 7.3 Examples of experiential collages. Courtesy of Karen Keddy.

The initial formulation of a question is typically refined in the light of ongoing in- terviews or observations; this enables the researcher to test out emerging insights: for example, by adding new or follow‐up questions to the interview, and conducting observations at different locations or times of day. 19 (See also Chapters 2 and 11 for more details on inductive logic.)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

222 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

Such is the case with Groat and Ahrentzen’s study of faculty women. The anal- ysis of the one- to two-hour interviews required a long, interactive process of iden- tifying key themes, the development of an elaborate coding scheme, and eventual synthesis into the textual narrative for their article. The published article not only reports on the key themes culled from the “visions” section of the interview, but also grounds these themes through illustrative quotations from individual faculty women. Only after the major themes were identified did the authors turn to con- sider the remarkable parallel to the recommendations of the 1996 Carnegie Foundation study of architectural education.20 To be specific, five of the seven themes Groat and Ahrentzen identified correspond to those from the Carnegie study: ideals of a liberal education, interdisciplinary connections, different modes of thought, communicative design studios, and caring for students. Groat and Ahrentzen conclude that “these recommendations constitute a consistent and pow- erful argument for the visions for architectural education that any number of individual faculty women have been valiantly advocating for many years.”21

Although the qualitative research strategy is sometimes characterized as exclu- sively inductive, many researchers point out that is not the case.22 Rather, it is a mat- ter of degree of emphasis. Whereas other research designs are more likely to rely more heavily on deductive logic (e.g., experimental or logical argumentation), qual- itative research tends to emphasize a holistic exploration of complex situations and environments where testing and deduction of sequenced or causal relations are unlikely. However, the often‐iterative sequence of data collection, interpretive processes, and theory building implies that at some point tentative conclusions and theories and may be tested out in more deductive sequences.

7.2.6 Other Aspects of Qualitative Research Strategy

To review, then, the strategy of qualitative research is one of first‐hand encounters with a specific and defined context. It involves gaining an understanding of how people in real‐world situations “make sense” of their environment and themselves; and it depends on, rather than rejects, the researcher’s interpretation of the col- lected data. Finally, it achieves this understanding by means of a variety of tactics, employed through a primarily inductive process. Other typical characteristics of the qualitative strategy are listed in Figure 7.4.

Although the origins of qualitative research are primarily in social and human science‐based fields, readers of this chapter may already see that this research de- sign bears many similarities to historical research in architecture (see Chapter 6). Indeed, both strategies seek to describe and/or explain socio-physical phenomena within complex contexts, and both seek to consider the relevant phenomena in a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 223

holistic manner. Even more telling, perhaps, is that Denzin and Lincoln’s major ed- ited book on qualitative research strategies includes a chapter titled “Historical Social Science” by Gaye Tuchman.23 A major facet of Tuchman’s argument is that earlier formulations regarding the distinction between history and sociology have been largely abandoned. She then concludes: “What remains in both fields is recog- nition that research is an interpretive enterprise.”24

There are, however, at least two major differences between the qualitative re- search design and the historical strategy, as defined within this text. Perhaps the most obvious is the temporal focus; whereas qualitative studies tend to focus on contemporaneous phenomena, historical research by definition focuses on environments or contexts that were created in the past. Second, the data sources and collection techniques are also likely to be different. Whereas qualitative re- searchers more often incorporate data sources that involve people through

Holistic. Qualitative research typically aims “to develop a complex picture” that “involves report- ing multiple perspectives, identifying the many factors involved in a situation, and generally sketch- ing the larger picture that emerges.” (Creswell, p. 39) Prolonged Contact. With its emphasis on fieldwork, qualitative research typically entails “invest- ment of time sufficient to learn the culture, understand context, and/or build trust and rapport.” (O’Leary, p. 115) Open-Ended. Qualitative research tends to be more open‐ended in both theoretical conception and research design, such that “the initial plan for research cannot be tightly prescribed, and that all phases of the process may change or shift” during the fieldwork or data collection. (Creswell, p. 39) Researcher as Measurement Device. Since there is relatively little use of standardized measures such as survey questionnaires, the researcher is “essentially the main ‘measurement device’ in the study.” (Miles & Huberman, p. 7) Analysis through Words or Visual Material. Since an emphasis on descriptive numerical measures and inferential statistics is typically eschewed, the principal mode of analysis is through words, whether represented in visual displays or through narrative devices. (Miles & Huberman, p. 7) Personal or Informal Writing Stance. In contrast to the typical journal format of experimental or correlational studies, the writing style of qualitative work is typically offered in a “literary, flexible style that conveys stories . . . without the formal academic structures of writing.” (Creswell, p. 40)

Figure 7.4 Additional attributes of qualitative research. Sources: John W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007); Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1994); Zina O’Leary, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

224 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

interviews and observation, historians more routinely rely on written documents and physical sources.

Despite these differences in focus, the relationship between qualitative and historical research designs demonstrates once again how permeable the boundaries are between the various research strategies. In this case especially, the two are easily compatible in architectural research. Moreover, aspects of one can successfully aug- ment the characteristics of the other. For example, some historical research may advantageously incorporate a greater focus on the social impact of particular build- ings, styles, or city forms. Likewise, studies of contemporaneous environments may profit from more extensive analyses of historical archives and/or of the physical artifacts themselves. This potential for combined strategies will be taken up in greater detail later in this book. (See Chapter 12 on combined strategies.)

7 . 3 S t R at e g y: f o u R Q u a l I tat I v e a p p R o a c h e S

In this section, we address three relatively distinct schools of thought common to qualitative research in architectural and environmental research: ethnography, phe- nomenological inquiry, and grounded theory (sometimes known as the constant comparative method). In addition, we will describe more recent trends in which scholars have sought to integrate aspects of the several schools of thought.

In each of the following subsections, we first summarize the basic characteris- tics of each qualitative approach, including a discussion of the strengths and weak- nesses of each. We then point out examples from architecture and architectural inquiry that offer ready connections to each approach.

7.3.1 Ethnography

Ethnographic research emphasizes in‐depth engagement with site‐specific settings, most especially through active and thorough observation. Although ethnographic fieldwork was initially and primarily associated with the discipline of anthropology, it has also been adopted by a number of other disciplines, including sociology, human geography, organization studies, educational research, and cultural studies.25

True to its anthropological roots, ethnographic methodology emerged in the early 20th century through the work of several anthropologists who aimed to estab- lish a “natural science of society” that could “furnish an objective description of a culture.”26 In contrast to the “desk” anthropologists of the time who based their speculations purely on secondary sources, the proponents of ethnography sought to ascertain the “natives’” point of view, within the context of their own culture.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 225

Although early ethnographic research reflected Western interest in non‐ Western societies through the prism of the positivist intellectual paradigm of the time, more recent ethnographic work in a variety of disciplines has sought to inves- tigate various subcultures within both Western and global societies through a natu- ralistic paradigm, often employing a transformative school of thought.

The overall characteristics of ethnographic work are fully consistent with the broader definition of the qualitative strategy presented earlier in this chapter, in- cluding holistic exploration of a setting, including context‐rich detail; the reliance on unstructured (i.e., not precoded) data; a focus on a single case or small number of cases; and data analysis that emphasizes the interpretation of “the meanings and functions of human action.”27

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of ethnographic fieldwork is its tendency to rely on “observation” as its primary mode of data collection. Although observa- tion is a common tactic within both qualitative and other research strategies, eth- nographer Giampietro Gobo argues that what distinguishes observation in ethnography is “the more active role assigned to observation.”28 If the researcher is relatively uninterested in understanding the symbolic meaning embedded in cul- tural life, she may choose to employ nonparticipant observation so as not to inter- fere with the ongoing actions and behavior of the people be studied.

More commonly, the researcher is likely to employ participant observation. This term is frequently used to refer to a situation in which the researcher plays a naturally occurring, established role in the situation under study. For instance, the researcher’s identity might be known by few or many, or revealed in more or less detail. Moreover, the researcher may participate to a greater or lesser degree in his apparent role; or he may take the stance of either an insider or outsider. Thus, participant observation can encompass enormous variation in how the researcher chooses to observe and participate in the phenomena being studied.

Cuff ’s study of architectural practice serves as a good example of the ethno- graphic approach to qualitative research. She is quite explicit in describing her re- search as following ethnographic principles. As she puts it:

[M]ost current ethnographic studies look at patterns of interpretation that members of a cultural group invoke as they go about their daily lives. Into the general knot of making sense of the world, an ethnography ties ideas about the group’s knowledge, its beliefs, its social organization, how it reproduces itself, and the material world in which it exists.29

Moreover, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, Cuff ’s in‐depth study of three architectural firms entailed a robust and active engagement participant observation,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

226 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

which included observing and note taking at design team, client, and consultant meetings; a variety of office work such as drafting and model making; and numer- ous informal social occasions.

A doctoral dissertation in architecture offers another example of ethnographic research. In response to the ongoing modernization of her native Thailand, Piyarat Nanta sought to discover the extent to which people’s place experience of their tra- ditional vernacular homes in a rural region of central Thailand had been trans- formed through the changing sociocultural context of the past 50 years.30

With this goal in mind, Nanta interviewed 2 members of each family in 15 vernacular houses in a rural village area of Baan Krang, where rice farming occupies over 95% of the arable land.31 Because she sought to understand the temporal transformation of each home, most respondents were elderly, but were typically assisted by a younger family member who was interviewed as well. In ad- dition, she also interviewed five master house builders and two master carpenters. Her initial semistructured interview with the families (which were video recorded and later transcribed) yielded insights on the history of the house, daily activities, occupants’ perceptions of their homes, and historical and contemporary social changes.32

These interviews served as a springboard for subsequent observation and arti- factual documentation. In addition to observing the life style of the family and the home in use, Nanta took careful note of physical modifications made to the home to accommodate their changing life patterns. The artifactual documentation en- tailed photography, videotapes, and annotated plan layouts of the interior, exterior, and immediate landscape. Once the contemporary house layout was documented, family members were asked to recall the house form historically, and the separate historically based annotated layout was produced (see Figure 7.5). To augment the historical perspective on farming life, Nanta conducted a survey of nearby Buddhist temple murals, which depict the dynamics of the domestic and social lives of the farmers, as well as physical features of their dwellings.

Overall, Nanta’s research is a classic example of the ethnographic approach to qualitative research which foregrounds the active role of observation, while also employing “ancillary sources” such as interviews, artifactual documentation, and historical archives.33 In a broader perspective, Nanta’s research is consistent with the general characteristics of qualitative research, particularly its inductive empha- sis. This is evidenced in the way she has layered her in‐depth analyses of the fami- lies’ daily life and routines; the meaning and interpretations of home; and the house form as it evolved over generations. Taken together, in a holistic way, she is able to conclude that the experience of place in these vernacular homes has evolved from a hierarchical to an integrated space; from being a container for ancestral memory to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 227

a physical structure that symbolizes status; and from constant family interaction to transspatial family relations—or, in sum, from the house as the center of the social group and rice production to the house as sanctuary.

7.3.2 Phenomenology

Phenomenological inquiry is arguably the most well‐known and established strand of the qualitative research utilized in architectural research. It derives from both the phenomenological tradition of German philosophers (e.g., Husserl and Heidegger, among others) and more recent versions of phenomenology influential in the social sciences. Among these, the sociologist Alfred Schutz attempted to develop a “phe- nomenological sociology” that would serve as a bridge between traditional sociol- ogy and Edmund Husserl’s philosophical phenomenology.34

A defining quality of this work, as described by John Creswell, is that research- ers aim to clarify the essential or underlying meaning of experience, “where experi- ences contain both the outward appearance and inward consciousness based on

Figure 7.5 Transformation of two Thai vernacular dwellings. Historical dwell- ings are shown at the top with contemporary versions below. Courtesy of Piyarat Nanta.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

228 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

memory, image, and meaning.”35 Similarly, Schwandt identifies the goal of phenom- enological inquiry as seeking an understanding of “the complex world of lived expe- rience from the point of view of those who live it.”36 Following Husserl, the Cartesian duality of subject and object is collapsed by presuming that “reality” is embodied in the meaning of an object in subjective consciousness. A basic principle underlying such an inquiry is the concept of “bracketing,” whereby the researcher sets aside any prejudgments and relies on his/her intuition and imagination to un- cover the universal or essential qualities of the phenomena.

From the perspective of the architectural field, a significant advantage or attrac- tion to phenomenological inquiry results from the premise that consciousness is understood to be directed toward an “object,” the reality of which is inextricably linked to one’s consciousness.37 And this, of course, may include the physical envi- ronment. As such, phenomenology can be seen as having more kinship with archi- tectural research than other qualitative approaches that have originated with a more exclusive focus on people’s interactions unmoored from the physical context.

Within the environmental design fields, David Seamon, editor of the long- standing newsletter Environmental & Architectural Phenomenology, has identified three ongoing strands of research over the past five decades: (1) hermeneutical; (2) first‐person; and (3) existential.38 The research described by the first category, hermeneutic inquiry, includes a number of the classic phenomenological texts that have been influential in architecture and allied disciplines, such as Norberg‐Schulz’s Genius Loci and subsequent books, Thiis‐Evensen’s Architectypes in Architecture, and Edward Relph’s Place and Placelessness. Within the hermeneutic category, Gaston Bachelard’s book The Poetics of Space, from 1958, represents a truly classic work.39 Bachelard uses textual analysis of poignant vignettes from literature and poetry to weave an interpretive analysis of dwelling. Because such works depend primarily on a combination of argumentation and/or textual analyses, studies of this kind are discussed in Chapter 11.

The second and third strands of phenomenological inquiry, however, represent research within the qualitative research strategy. As Seamon explains, in first‐person phenomenological inquiry “the researcher uses her own firsthand experience of the phenomenon as a basis for examining its specific characteristics and qualities.”40 A classic example of this type of inquiry is Francis Violich’s comparative analysis of place experience in five Dalmatian towns. Through a variety of tactics, including mapping, sketching, and journal entries, he identified first the key spatial features that contributed each town’s character, and concluded his analysis with a composite set of qualities that contribute to a sense of place.41

In a similar vein, Ingrid Stefanovic sought “to provide a phenomenological read- ing” of two very different towns: the Croatian town of Cavtat, and the Toronto suburb

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 229

of Missasauga. Although the towns represent a significant contrast in spatial and tem- poral qualities, Stefanovic concludes that “some convergence of images in our descrip- tions . . . may shed light on the appeal of genuine sense of place.”42 Indeed, she finds that both communities share a strong expression of center; the significance of nature within the built environment; an expression of self‐ identity; the experience of enclosure; and reference to the larger scale of environments within which they are situated.43

The immediacy and experiential depth of first‐hand studies such as these can often be informative, insightful, and sometimes inspirational for design profession- als. Nevertheless, first‐hand studies are not without their challenges. Methodologi- cally, the researcher aims to “bracket” his/her prejudgments to arrive at an understanding of the “essence” of the experience that transcends individual subjec- tivity. Or, as Schwandt puts it, phenomenological research must struggle with “[t] he paradox of how to develop an objective interpretive science of subjective human experience.”44

The challenge is even more complicated when architects and designers, as the researchers, apply their subjectivity to illuminate the “essence” of a given place experience. A considerable body of design research has demonstrated critical differences between expert and lay experiences in a variety of settings and contexts.45 Similarly, people who experience a building or landscape with different purposes in mind (an errand versus recreation; or a business meeting versus building mainte- nance) are likely to experience the setting in fundamentally different ways.46 So, for purposes of design practice, first‐hand phenomenological studies may well spark an imaginative design concept, but they may not yield sufficient insight for designers faced with the dynamics of a complex, multifaceted design project.

Box 7.1

Qualitative Research: A Phenomenological Approach to Research Design

Clare Cooper Marcus’s study of people’s attachments to their homes, House as a Mirror of Self, is a good example of what one might call “applied phenomenology.”a This book builds on work that she began many years ago with the publication of a now‐classic article entitled, “The

a Clare Cooper Marcus, House as a Mirror of Self (Berkeley, CA: Conari Press, 1995).

(Continued )

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

230 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

House as a Symbol of the Self.”b Her approach to this material is particu- larly attractive in that she finds ways to access the phenomenological unity between a subject and her home—and finds ways to write about it— without using much of the typical jargon found in more explicit phenom- enological writings. Because of her lack of use of the usual jargon, the following citation from the introduction to her book is actually somewhat atypical, but it is useful in unveiling the phenomenological moorings of her methodology:

So far as I was able, I attempted to approach this material via what philosopher Martin Heidegger called “pre‐logical thought.” This is not “illogical” or “irrational,” but rather a mode of approaching being‐in‐ the‐world that permeated early Greek thinkers at a time before the categorization of our world into mind and matter, cause and effect, in‐here and out‐there had gripped . . . the Western mind. I firmly be- lieve that a deeper level of person/environment interaction can be ap- proached only by means of a thought process that attempts to eliminate observer and object.c

Marcus was dissatisfied early in her research because her work had dealt primarily with house, but not home. It was not until a friend of hers “talked to the desert” that she discovered a way by which precognitive realities of the “house‐self dynamic” could be unearthed. She then em- barked on tactics that involved asking a subject to talk to her house, and then to have the house “talk” back to her, supplemented by her respon- dents’ attempts to capture the feelings in graphic form (see Figures 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8).

When Cooper Marcus turned to graphic exercises, as well as “talking to” rather than “talking about” environments of attachment, a phenom- enological world opened up. For example, one individual, Bill, chafed at her suggestion that his love for remodeling was a “hobby.” Bill’s response: “The word hobby is an annoying word to me . . . this is not a hobby . . . this is a fundamental part of our existence.”d His insistence that the work of his hands is a “fundamental part of our existence” is profound in its conveyance of a sense of ontological unity between himself and his envi- ronment. In studies of a phenomenological nature, such use of words may also be data.

b Clare Cooper Marcus, “The House as Symbol of the Self,” in J. Lang et al. (eds.), Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences (Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974). c Clare Cooper Marcus, House as a Mirror of Self. d Ibid., 61.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 231

Figure 7.6 Drawings by the in- terviewees. Illustrations originally appeared in House as a Mirror of Self by Clare Cooper Marcus, used with permission of author.

Figure 7.7 Drawings by the in- terviewees. Illustrations originally appeared in House as a Mirror of Self by Clare Cooper Marcus, used with permission of author.

Figure 7.8 Drawings by the in- terviewees. Illustrations originally appeared in House as a Mirror of Self by Clare Cooper Marcus, used with permission of author.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

232 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

In this light, Seamon’s third category of existential‐phenomenological research is likely to be the most pertinent strand of research for design practice. He defines this category as focusing on “the specific experiences of specific individuals or groups in actual situations or places.”47 The assumption behind this type of phe- nomenological inquiry is that when individual descriptive accounts are thought- fully analyzed and considered collectively, meaningful themes will be revealed so long as the researcher remains “open to their guidance and speaking, their disclo- sure, when we attend to them.”48 This quotation is a particularly evocative way to highlight the sensibility among many researchers who value the commitment to use of an inductive process in qualitative research.

Maire O’Neill’s study of Montana ranch families’ place experiences over two generations is a good example of Seamon’s existential phenomenology category. Within a conceptual framework informed by well‐known precedents in the phe- nomenology literature (e.g., psychologist Erwin Straus and geographer Yi‐Fu Tuan), she focuses on the haptic sensibilities of the body (perceptions gained by movement, touch, etc.) experienced by three families who were third‐ to fifth‐ generation residents of their ranches. Through in‐depth open‐ended interviews, she posed questions “intended to initiate a monologue that allowed participants to consider the buildings and landscape in their own terms.”49

By carefully scrutinizing the interview transcripts, O’Neill was able to uncover the “modes of perception and understanding people were thinking about, recalling and describing their space.”50 From these interview monologues, she derived a tax- onomy of the types of knowledge the ranchers unself-consciously employed to re- call their place experience: visual, haptic, familial, and cultural. In addition, the ranchers’ recall of the spatial qualities of the ranches over generational time re- vealed a remarkable stability of circulation patterns and spatial placement of build- ings (see Figure 7.9). As O’Neill observes, this continuity of place form and memory through generations embodies Seamon’s concept of “place‐ballet as part of an integrated pattern of life that in itself defines the place.”51

Although O’Neill’s conclusions for this specific setting type are not likely to be immediately useful to designers or architects in practice, the underlying principles are indeed relevant to practice. Designing with sensitivity to the haptic experience of place from multiple subjective perspectives can contribute to the quality of many design projects. O’Neill also argues that the insights from this study have important implications for architectural and design education:

[U]nwittingly, the teaching and learning process of the design studio may com- pletely override a variety of culturally or individually based perceptual charac- teristics that might otherwise enrich . . . the work. By cultivating awareness of a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 233

Figure 7.9 Transformation and continuity of family ranch site plan. Illustration courtesy of Maire O’Neill. Permission courtesy of Wiley.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

234 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

range of haptic sensibilities, designers can more appropriately consider how in- siders really experience place.52

Finally, a range of phenomenological research derived from cultural studies and human sciences provides a complementary foundation for research in architec- ture and design. Earlier in the chapter, a brief mention was made of the contribu- tions of Alfred Schutz, a sociologist and author of the book, The Phenomenology of the Social World. His intention was to elucidate the process of intersubjective under- standing, and the process by which it is co‐constructed. This project, subsequently taken up by Garfunkel, has been termed ethnomethodology.53 In a study by Auburn and Barnes, the authors seek to demonstrate how such an approach can illuminate the intersubjective processes by which place meaning is contested and/or af- firmed.54 Taking the example of in‐depth analyses of complaints of transgression by travelers through a rural residential neighborhood in Britain, the authors argue that some phenomenological concepts such as place identity or place attachment focus too exclusively on mentalist interpretations, and potentially minimize the role of a more holistic action orientation that accounts for people’s purposes within the con- text of others’ actions.

Ethnomethodology also highlights an important potential for research that fo- cuses on the processes of design and planning practices. As qualitative researcher Lynn Butler‐Kisber observes, a number of professional disciplines are attracted to such an approach because of the focus on process, and because it presents an alterna- tive to a more managerial and purely instrumental understanding of knowledge and action in organizational settings.55

Though Cuff ’s study of architectural practice primarily employs ethnography, her study also employs aspects of ethnomethodology. One facet of this is her insis- tence on the significant role of interpretation both on the part of the respondents and on the part of the researcher. More important, her extensive analysis of crucial meetings within each firm, and with clients, demonstrates her intention to elucidate the processes by which knowledge is negotiated and decisions are made.

With its focus on the process of intersubjective co‐construction of meaning and action, ethnomethodology seems to occupy an interstitial conceptual space be- tween ethnography’s tendency to emphasize the relative stability of group or orga- nizational culture and much of architectural phenomenology’s tendency to foreground the essential meaning of individual subjective experience.

7.3.3 Grounded Theory

Similar to the ethnographic and phenomenological traditions, grounded theory seeks to investigate a setting holistically and without preset opinions or notions.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 235

A defining characteristic of the grounded theory approach is its stated aim to iden- tify an explanatory theory as it emerges from the analytical process. Once the the- ory is proposed, other similar contexts can be studied to see if the emergent theory has explanatory power.

The term grounded theory has been particularly associated with the work of sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who first articulated this approach in the late 1960s and the 1970s.56 Their aim was to move the then prevailing norms of qualitative research from purely descriptive studies toward explanatory theoreti- cal frameworks.57 The underlying epistemological assumptions of grounded theory reflect the differing backgrounds of these two authors. While Glaser’s background in quantitative empiricism led to codified methods and terminologies, Strauss’s background in the more interpretive traditions in sociology led to a focus on the dynamic processes by which people interpret meaning and enact change.58

In later refinements of this approach, Strauss and Corbin offered this definition:

In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close re- lationship to one another. A researcher does not begin a project with a precon- ceived theory in mind (unless his or her purpose is to elaborate and extend existing theory). Rather, the researcher begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data. . . . Grounded theories, because they are drawn from data, are likely to offer insight, enhance understanding, and provide a meaningful guide to action.59

Grounded theory can be further described in the following ways. First, it de- pends on an intensive, open‐ended, and iterative process that simultaneously in- volves data collection, coding (data analysis), and memoing (theory building). The diagram in Figure 7.10, developed by Kathy Charmaz, suggests all combinations of iterative sequencing of these three tasks throughout the research process.60 In ex- plaining this process, Strauss draws a distinction between “grounded theory” re- search and other qualitative research: “This reexamination of all data throughout the life of the research project is a procedure probably engaged in by most qualita- tive researchers. But they do not usually double back‐and‐forth between collecting data, coding them, memoing.”61 In other words, in grounded theory research, it is assumed that the object of study is not fully explained “on the first take”; rather, repeated observation, data collection, and structuring the data into a working ex- planatory framework are all part of an iterative process that leads to an emergence of a theory.

The significant role of the in‐depth coding process entailed in grounded theory is clearly reflected in Donna Wheatley’s research on stakeholders’ experiential

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

236 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

interpretations of workplace design. In coding the interview transcripts, Wheatley sought to identify key words that were linked as either environment‐response pairs, response‐response pairs, and less frequently environment‐environment pairs. As the coding process progressed, care was taken to gradually refine the labeling of the underlying constructs inherent in each wording pair (see Figure 7.11). As con- ceived by Glaser, this analytical process is termed the “constant comparative method of analysis,” and is also a defining feature of grounded theory. Wheatley elaborates on her coding process as follows:

Figure 7.10 The Grounded Theory Process, Charmaz, 2006. Courtesy of SAGE Publications.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 237

This technique calls upon the researcher to take one piece of data (such as one statement or theme) and compare it to other pieces of data that are ei- ther similar or different. During this process, what makes this piece of data different and/or similar to other pieces of data becomes clearer. Due to the data base entry process, the transcripts on which a construct was based could be easily reviewed to check the appropriateness of the construct label refinement.62

Another defining feature of grounded theory is the ongoing role of memoing in theory building. As Strauss describes it:

Theoretical ideas are kept track of, and continuously linked and built up by means of theoretical memos [author’s emphasis]. From time to time they are taken out of the file and examined and sorted, which results in new ideas, thus new memos. . . . Sorting [author’s emphasis] of memos (and codes) may occur at any phase of the research. Both examination and sorting produce memos of greater scope and conceptual density.63

5 6

David: It suggests the fluidity and its collaborative elements and that we maintain our own space but have easy access to, anyone that we need to talk to.space but have easy access to, anyone that we need to talk to.

Donna: Okay. How does the…?

David: Because it shows the spaces between people so that there are enough sense ofa d Because it shows the spaces bet ee peop e so t at t e e a e e oug se se creating one's own personal space within the context of a larger floor.

David: There's obviously there's a sense of aesthetic quality to the painting that I like and therefore it perfects it. I like this office space as well. pp

Donna: And what you mean by fluidity?

David: Well, there's no straight lines in there whatsoever that you can see. So it's to do with yg, the fact that sort of routes that we take when walking around the office ought to vary all the time.

David: There's almost a sense that the floor plan itself is not static rather than just on jp locations within it. But there's got certain moveable sections or screens within the area that we have, that it's always been a choice.

Figure 7.11 Coding analysis for Wheatley’s study of workplace environments. Courtesy of Donna Wheatley.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

238 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

Groat and Ahrentzen’s study of women faculty (described in the beginning of this chapter) entailed a substantial and ongoing memoing process as they were in- terviewing the faculty women participants. The authors routinely wrote and ex- changed memos on their preliminary interpretations of the interviews, both to initiate the process of analysis and to guide the development of the remaining inter- views (see Figure 7.12).

Finally, the process by which theory emerges within the iterative cycles of data collection, coding, and memoing has led a number of authors to characterize “grounded research” as an exclusively inductive process. Strauss, however, disputes this characterization; indeed, he argues that there is essential agreement that all sci- entific theories “require first of all that they be conceived, then elaborated, then checked out.”64 The terms he applies to this process are induction (theory concep- tion), deduction (elaboration), and verification (checking out). He acknowledges that because he and Glaser attacked the application of speculative (ungrounded)

Perception that Architectural Education Reflects a Narrowing of the Mind. A number of women discuss the narrow focus, perspective, or intellectual inquiry in architectural education. Could these complaints stem from women whose educational background (or part of) was outside standard architectural education, hence they were exposed to other fields (e.g., Urban Studies, Music) that were more multidisciplinary and inclusive? I also wonder if this complaint may be a particular issue for those women whose own education/training was more “transformational,” as discussed in the Aisenberg/ Harrington book and also discussed in Belenky et al.’s Women’s Ways of Knowing. — SA to LG 10/14/92

Attractions, Realities, and Myths of Architecture. The meaning for architecture for women. This is a version of the hypothesis I outlined earlier: whether women architecture students tend to be motivated by more idealistic, socially oriented goals than their male counterparts. If this is the case, the actual realities of architectural education and practice might lead to higher frustration and disappointment, and ultimately to more attrition. Within the context of this study, this hypothesis cannot actually be tested, but it is possible at least to determine the extent to which our sample actually holds idealistically, socially oriented goals for architecture; the extreme frustration and attrition phenomena can not be measured without an extensive sample of deflected women. In Sherry’s discussion of the “narrowing of the field” concern expressed by many women, she speculated that this complaint might be more common among “women whose own education was more transformational.” I think this is a good line to follow up. I suspect it may be true and also related to the tendency for women to come to architecture when they are older, i.e. after a broader range of life experiences.—LG to SA 11/2/92

Figure 7.12 Memoing from Groat and Ahrentzen, 1997. Courtesy of Linda N. Groat and Sherry Ahrentzen.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 239

theory, people mistakenly interpreted the work as exclusively inductive. In truth, he suggests that deduction and verification are equally essential.

Over the years since Glaser and Strauss developed the principles of grounded theory, and scholars in a variety of disciplines have adopted this approach, an ironic confluence of trends has emerged. On the one hand, grounded theory has been influential in the development of qualitative research, while on the other, it has since the early 1990s been criticized for its positivistic assumptions. More specifi- cally, in their classic grounded theory research, Glaser and Strauss appear to assume that there is a reality “out there,” that theory can be discovered “from data that is separate from the scientific observer.”65 Moreover, grounded theory has frequently been employed by established researchers working from a postpositivist perspec- tive in mixed methods studies66 (see Chapter 12).

Box 7.2

A Grounded Theory Approach to Understanding the Culture, Identity, and Teaching Environment of Graduate Design Programs

Deborah Littlejohn’s dissertation explores academic culture in the context of great social, technological, and professional change in the practice of graphic and interaction design. It results in a new substantive grounded theory. In essence, her research question is: How do graduate-level design programs anticipate, define, and meet the demands of preparing students for change in the professional and social conditions of practice?

Using grounded theory as the conceptual framework for her inquiry, Littlejohn specifically employed analytic procedures outlined by Charmaz’s constructivist perspective on grounded theory, supplemented by a visual mapping procedure known as “situational analysis.”a

To investigate this question, Littlejohn conducted in‐depth, semistruc- tured interviews with 31 key faculty, at 4 leading U.S. graduate design programs, over a 5-month period. Programs were chosen to represent a range of organizational structures common to design schools in the United

a A. E. Clarke, Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005); K. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2006); J. Corbin and A. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008).

(Continued )

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

240 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

States. Supplementary data included extensive on‐site observations and a detailed analysis of existing curricular documents. Reflective field notes and situation maps helped Littlejohn unify concepts across the different data sources, enabling a thick, rich depiction of the properties, conditions, and dimensions that emerged in the final grounded theory.

The first step in the analytic process involves initial, open, and focused coding, whereby important ideas and events are identified in the data sources as concrete concepts, and the most significant codes are then used to sort, synthesize, and organize data into more abstract categories. The next step, axial coding, entails exploring the interactions among the devel- oping categories (i.e., the possible conditions that give rise to them, the context in which they are embedded, the strategies that participants employ to manage or carry them out, and the consequences of these strategies). An example of axial coding in this study is external engagement, which ranges along the axis of “pushing out” to “pulling in” (see Figure 7.13). Conse- quences included “teaching differently,” “new kinds of designers,” and an “expanded/elevated field.” Selective coding is the phase of analysis whereby the core category (transactive integration) is identified and the other major categories (external engagement, mediating meanings, and transparency) are oriented around the core to produce the grounded theory.

The final step of grounded theory entails consulting the literature to support the new theory. In this study, connections are made to extant the- ories in the areas of geographic pragmatism, affordance theory, situated learning, and activity theory. These domains share a concern with how

Figure 7.13 Process diagram for “external engagement.” Diagram courtesy of Deborah Littlejohn.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 241

At the same time, many researchers using the qualitative research strategy have moved grounded theory away from its more postpositivist origins. These research- ers have taken the prescribed tactics of ground theory (coding, memoing, etc.) and deployed them within constructivist or transformative schools of thought. Charmaz explicitly articulates the more intersubjectivist epistemology typical of many con- temporary qualitative researchers:

I assume that neither data nor theories are discovered. Rather, we are part of the world we study and the data we collect. . . . Research participants’ implicit meanings, experiential views—and researchers’ finished grounded theories— are constructions of reality.67

7.3.4 Integrative Approaches to Qualitative Research

The previous discussions of three schools of thoughts—ethnography, phenome- nology, and grounded theory—have been presented in their historically situated disciplinary contexts as three relatively distinct research traditions. This perspec- tive is useful in highlighting the defining principles and assumptions of each ap- proach in its own terms.

Taken together, however, these three schools of thought evidence some sig- nificant intersections and commonalities. First, within each of the three qualitative

individuals and groups learn through social interactions with others and their environment.

The theory that emerged from Littlejohn’s research suggests a holistic view of the teaching environment and provides insight into how its design may enable effective responses to the changing conditions in design prac- tice by promoting sense making, engagement, and transformation. The picture of program culture that emerged from the data was that of an in- terconnected network of social and spatial processes.

Perhaps the most striking finding is the degree to which programs are looking outside of the design field for innovative pedagogic ideas, evi- denced by administrative policies that permit hiring faculty and accepting students without design backgrounds and that encourage a wide range of opportunities for both faculty and students to collaborate with peers out- side of their program and discipline. The understanding of approaches to teaching new design competencies this study provides can be used to sup- port other programs in the development of guidelines for designing effec- tive instructional settings.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

242 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

traditions, noted research studies have been framed within each of the three previ- ously noted systems of inquiry: postpositivist, naturalistic, and transformative. For example, phenomenological studies that seek to understand phenomena “as made up of essences and essential structures which can be identified and described if studied carefully and rigorously enough” could be interpreted as representing “a belief in a knowable world with universal properties,” and hence a realist perspec- tive consistent with postpositivism.68 Similarly, early ethnographic studies aimed to provide “objective” descriptions and analyses of observed, often “native” cultures; and mention has already been made of the more postpositivist background and orientation of one of the originators of grounded theory.

Most recent examples of qualitative research, both across disciplines and within architecture, tend to be framed within either the intersubjective or subjec- tivist paradigms. For example, O’Neill’s phenomenological study of ranch families’ experience of place over time is more consistent with an intersubjective approach. Indeed, Finlay argues that many phenomenological studies implicitly accept both the validity of “essential structures” and the multiplicity of different appearances or voices, a position she argues is consistent with Lincoln and Guba’s early defini- tion of the naturalist paradigmatic framework (see Chapter 3).69 Likewise, Cuff ’s ethnographic study of architectural practice within three firms, and Wheatley’s grounded theory approach to understanding the experiential qualities of work- place environments from different stakeholder perspectives are consistent with an intersubjective orientation.

However, Keddy’s phenomenologically based study of a hospital surgical unit from the perspective of nursing staff was conceived within an explicitly transforma- tive school of thought. She argues that in order to go beyond the limitations of ex- isting approaches and assumptions in research, she has adopted a poststructuralist feminist perspective. Within this paradigmatic framework, she has proposed the concept of embodied professionalism “as a socio‐spatial experience that has defi- nite time, body, people, and spatial components that are interconnected.”70 In es- sence, Keddy’s research is consistent with what Finlay has described as “postphenomenology,” which takes into account the “multidimensionality, multi- stability, and the multiple ‘voices’” of phenomena, a perspective that seems to strad- dle the intersubjective and subjectivist paradigms.71

Keddy’s study is also representative of a number of research studies that make use of elements from multiple schools of thought. So while Keddy’s study is primar- ily phenomenological, she also integrates ethnography into her work in the form of “institutional ethnography,” which was devised by a feminist sociologist, Dorothy Smith, as a way of studying marginalized groups. Smith advocates for beginning with each participant’s “working knowledge of her everyday world.”72 From that

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 243

foundational understanding, the researcher can then knit together the diverse standpoints of women.

Indeed, several noted qualitative researchers have described the tendency in recent research to integrate multiple methodological approaches. For example, Gobo lists an array of recent developments that have emerged from the critical re- evaluation of ethnography’s origins, many of which are consistent with the transfor- mative school of thought: feminist ethnography, interpretive ethnography, postmodern ethnography, constitutive ethnography, institutional ethnography, performance ethnography, and global ethnography.73 Similarly, Charmaz described the emergence of “grounded theory ethnography.” She distinguished this line of inquiry as an ethnography that focuses less on the stable structures of a setting (typ- ical of the ethnographic tradition), and more on phenomena, or processes.74

7 . 4 ta c t I c S : a n o v e Rv I e w o f d ata c o l l e c t I o n, a n a ly S I S , a n d I n t e R p R e tat I o n

Taken together, the exemplar studies described in the previous discussions of eth- nographic research, phenomenology, and grounded theory represent a diverse range of processes and tactics typical of qualitative research.

7.4.1 The Process

In their classic book, Qualitative Data Analysis, Miles and Huberman describe the interactive relationship between data collection, data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verifying this way:

In this view the three types of analysis activity and the activity of data collection itself form an interactive, cyclical process. The researcher moves among these four “nodes” during information gathering/data collection and then shuttles among reduction, display, and conclusion drawing/verifying for the remainder of the study.75

Although the vocabulary that Miles and Huberman employ is not typically used by some qualitative approaches—particularly phenomenological studies of the hermeneutical or first‐person type—the underlying procedures involved can still be understood loosely in the categories of analysis that Miles and Huberman identify. In the following subsections, we will review the range of possibilities avail- able to qualitative researchers within each of these phases or categories of research processes.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

244 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

7.4.2 Data Collection

Among the various descriptors of data collection tactics, Creswell offers a particu- larly handy framework. He identifies four basic types of information: interviews, observations, documents, and audio visual information.76 Figure 7.14 presents a variation and elaboration of this framework, of course with the assumption that many design and architectural studies will entail objects, buildings, urban environ- ments, and landscapes. In addition, a distinction can be made between interactive versus noninteractive engagement.

For our purposes, the four main categories might be better identified as Interviews and Open‐Ended Response Formats, Observations, Artifacts and

Tactics Interactive Noninteractive Interviews & Open-Ended Response Formats

face-to-face or phone in-depth interviews

focus groups

task-oriented formats, e.g.: mapping exercises multiple sorting task projective surveys (games)

online response to open- ended questions

prompted journaling activity logs photo logs

Observations participant observation (research role concealed)

participant observation (research role known)

nonparticipant observation

Artifacts and Sites

in situ observation & analysis of artifacts/ buildings/urban context/ landscape sites

photos, drawings, or virtual representations of artifacts and sites

Archival Documents

public documents audio visual material artifactual or site documentation

personal journals, diaries, letters, sketches

Figure 7.14 The variety of data sources for qualitative research. Linda Groat and David Wang, Architectural Research Methods (New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002); and John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 245

Sites, and Archival Documents. Within each of these categories, there is a vari- ety of formats, some of which can also be incorporated within other research designs. Indeed, data collection formats are the subject of entire books. For example, Barbara Czarniawska has written extensively about the increasing use of the narrative format in the social sciences, including oral histories, autobio- graphical journals, and so on.77 Similarly, John Zeisel has written an insightful chapter on the observation of physical traces of use and behavior in various environments.78

Several of the exemplar studies already discussed in this chapter nicely repre- sent a diverse range of data collection processes. The Wheatley study on stakehold- ers’ experiential interpretations of workplace design made use primarily of in‐depth interviews of up to one and a half hours’ duration; within the interview format, participants were asked to sort and select images evocative of their experiences of their workplace. Other qualitative studies, such as the Nanta study of rural Thai houses, involved many months of research using multiple data collection tactics, including participant observation, multiple forms of documentation of the house, in‐depth videotaped interviews, and interpretation of historical artifacts in the form of temple murals. Keddy’s study of nurses’ experiential understanding of a surgery unit also employed multiple tactics, including in‐depth interviews, behavioral map- ping, and observations. Her use of the “experiential collage” to get at participants’ deeply held feelings echoes Cooper Marcus’ use of role‐playing and graphic sketches to uncover people’s sense of attachment—or lack thereof—to their houses.79

7.4.3 Data Reduction/Coding

For readers not already familiar with the qualitative research strategy, the idea that transcripts of in‐depth interviews or visual documentation of artifacts must be “ reduced” to “data” may seem counterintuitive, or perhaps even an oxymoron. However, in order for research to eventually yield conclusions or theory, at least some categorization of the examined phenomena must be identified or screened out from the rest of the environment being studied. What distinguishes the quali- tative strategy from other strategies (e.g., correlational or experimental) is the in- tention to capture the multifaceted and holistic qualities of the phenomena to the extent possible.

As author Zina O’Leary puts it: “[R]ichness is important, but qualitative anal- ysis involves more than just preserving richness. Good qualitative analysis actually requires you to build it. Put it this way: raw data may be rich, but it is also messy and not publishable.”80 To move from messy data to theoretical interpretations,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

246 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

O’Leary identifies the following six steps: (1) raw data; (2) organized data; (3) reduced data; (4) interconnected data; (5) thematic data; and (6) theoreti- cally meaningful understanding. The first three of these entail “drilling in,” whereas the latter three involve “abstracting out” (see Figure 7.15). Although this sequence reflects the overall arch of the analysis of qualitative data, this is typically not a linear process, but an iterative one.

In most qualitative research, there are likely to be extensive, sometimes vo- luminous, verbal or visual materials, in the form of interview transcripts, obser- vational notes, or artifactual documentation. Particularly in the situation of coding interview transcripts, the sheer volume of verbal material can make the coding an arduous task. There is no one way to begin coding and reducing data; however, in order to retain mindfulness in coding, it is often useful not only to make use of a coding scheme, but also to include reflective marginal remarks. As Miles and Huberman put it: “[I]f you are being alert about what you are doing, ideas and reactions to the meaning of what you are seeing will well up steadily.”81

An excellent example of the coding process is represented in Wheatley’s study of office environments, and was described in detail earlier in this chapter’s section on grounded theory. A further level of data reduction in Wheatley’s study is repre- sented in Figure 7.16. Here, as Wheatley describes it, the database from the

Interconnected data

Thematic data

Theoretically meaningful understanding

Reduced data

Organized data

Raw data

Figure 7.15 Working with qualitative data: drilling in and abstracting out. Courtesy SAGE Publications. Zina O’Leary, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010). p. 263, Figure 14.3.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 247

transcript coding for each participant group “was processed into a file that could be read by network analysis applications and visualization software.”82

However, many researchers employing the qualitative research strategy choose to employ interview coding tactics that do not depend on computer software. For example, O’Neill chose to represent the coding structure of each interview with what is essentially a comparative bar chart (see Figure 7.17). In this case, the pre- dominance of haptic experience for the interviewees is evident, whereas there is a clear difference among the participants with respect to significance of family stories and history.

For research studies in which the detailed documentation of built form and environments is essential, the visual representation of these environments may be extensive. For instance, in Nanta’s study of the transformation of vernacular houses, she combined interview data from family members, photography, and floor‐plan drawings to produce both an historical reconstruction and contemporary drawing.

Not surprisingly, there are a number of computer programs available for use with qualitative data that can facilitate data storage and management, coding,

Happy

Exciting Scary

Monkey bars

Fun

See-saw

Slide

Swings

Round-a-bout

Easy

Metatopic/ subgroup

Spatial quality - Constructs (1st level coding) - Metatopic (2nd level coding)

Environmental construct square shaped node

Node

Edge A link between

constructs found to be connected in transcripts

Response construct ellipse shaped node

Figure 7.16 Network analysis of participant interviews. Courtesy of Donna Wheatley.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

248

Fi g

u re

7 .1

7 Th

em at

ic a

n al

ys is

o f

ra n

ch er

in te

rv ie

w s.

Il lu

st ra

ti o

n c

o u

rt es

y o

f M

ai re

O ’N

ei ll.

P er

m is

si o

n c

o u

rt es

y o

f W

ile y.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 249

interpretation, and display. Because these programs are so frequently updated, we have not attempted to identify specific programs and their capabilities.

7.4.4 Data Display

Although most empirical research studies involve some sort of displays, in the form of charts, tables, exemplar visual images, and so on, the qualitative research strategy is likely to include particularly complex textual and visual displays that aim to con- vey the multifaceted nature of the analysis and conclusions.

Among the studies already mentioned in this chapter, Wheatley’s use of network analysis software is both innovative and appropriate to the overall pur- poses of the research. As Figure 7.18 illustrates, there is a significant contrast in the relative prominence of particular qualities perceived by users at Case 1 as compared to those at Case 2. Even without the color‐coding used in the origi- nal document, the network diagram of Case 1 reveals that the experience of the social dimension is virtually nonexistent as compared to the aesthetic and physical. In contrast, the users’ experience at Case 2 is represented by the prominence of “encouraging interaction” within a balanced constellation of aesthetic and physical attributes. Wheatley’s interpretation of the network analyses is further supported by her comparative analysis of the clients’ stated aspirational goals for each project as compared to users’ interpretations. Whereas the aspirational goals were achieved in the users’ experience at Case 2, this was not the case at Case 1.

Another effective data display is Nanta’s concluding diagram representing the variety of transformations in the experience of the Thai house. Using a model of place experience that incorporates the intersection of physical attributes, activities, and meanings, Nanta demonstrates how each dimension of experience has shifted over time. In this one diagram, Nanta has integrated and compressed all the data derived from the many diverse sources she employed throughout the course of her research (see Figure 7.19).

7.4.5 Drawing Conclusions and Verifying

Once the data have been coded/reduced and displayed, the researcher gradually moves towards clarifying patterns, providing explanations, and evaluating these findings. This is no small task, and a full discussion of the tactics involved would

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

250 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

Bright and airy

Minimalist

Serious corporate

Open and accessible

Impressive

Colourful

Social

Moderating interaction

Quiet

Democratic

Informal

(b)

Minimalist

Colourful

Bright and airy

Informal

Serious corporate

Open and accessible

Democratic

Quiet

Impressive

Social

Moderating interaction

Rooms aren’t booked

White

Clean lines

Geometric planning and forms

Building is classic corporate

Serious professional work

Smooth surfaces

Slick contemporary office

Uncluttered/tidy

Amazing views

Wall of windows

Natural light—a bit warm

Energy and life

Sense of openness Transparency in office

Colours in the office

Bright

Art works

Partially open plan Connected to people

Glass separating walls

See others and be seen/high visibility

Talk without disturbing everyone

Sense of having distance from others

Mostly corporate attire/dress

Mini bar/afternoon snacks

Social environment

Spacious / vast

Low-key

People are quiet

Having a break

A bit dull/ cold/empty

Simple design

Unexpected elements

No doors

Hi-tech equipment and communications

Colourful furniture

Glass walled meeting rooms/offices

High ceilings

No complete privacy

Calm

Comfortable inviting

Easy to move around

Equality among staff

Work outside office/home

Stands apart from other offices

Top floor of building

Trendy/ fashionable Feels clean/

healthy

Efficient/ motivated work

Historical company artefacts

Refreshments in kitchen

Slightly informal casual

Less formalities

Impresses clients and visitors

Inhibits communication

Long hallways

Don’t know what is going on

Independent work

Modern retro furniture (chairs/lights)

(a)

Figure 7.18 Comparative network analysis of users’ interviews at Case 1 (7.18a and b) and Case 2 (7.18c and d). Courtesy of Donna Wheatley.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 251

Flexible

Encouraging interaction

Legible

Structured and defined

Stylish

Environmentally sustainable

Textured and natural

Warm and inviting

Informal

Offering freedom

and choice

Organised

Orthogonal planning/layout

Abstract designer elements/art

Creative

Long low rectangular building

Feels Structured

Straight lines/no fuss

Structured lines of movement

Stylish and trendy

High end exceptional quality

Unique/stands out/design

Informal conversations

One open staircase Effective/offers closure in work

Efficient professional work

Glass meeting rooms

Visitor chairs next to desk

Casual meetings

Meeting spaces in the open

Laptops/tech

Flexible about where and how to work Mobile—can work in different places

Natural light Clean and fresh/airy

Open water view

Sustainable building

internal communications

Lights off at 6pm

Recycling bins

Visual connections throughout

See all the floors in the building

Pod’ rooms suspended into atrium

Natural sandstone wall

Reception and board room area

Represents company identity

Spaces interconnect

Desk shape and rows change for different groups

Pathways change

Separates teams

Calm

People are visible

Communication within office

Open plan office

Smart casual dress

Comfortable and a bit cosy

Inviting

Know more about what is going on

Feel in control

Warm colour tones in office

Legible workplace

Vibrancy and buzz

Visible movement of people

Large kitchen ’pods’ well stocked

Vertical movement

Social interactionMany areas tointeract/meet

Relaxed office

Lived in homely furniture/ couches/old rugs

Many options of places to work or be Random furniture scattered about

Not pretentious, simple

Real sense of team/collaboration

Honest/trusted relationships

Downstairs cafe area Behind the times in tech/IT Proud/impressive

Slight industrial/ wharf exterior design

Fits into surrounding area

Community partnerships and concern

Restored local heritage/history

Cutting edge

Healthy Not too processed, natural earthy elements

Bright

Sense of openness

Easy place to work

Some hot ’unowned’ desks for sr mgmt

Friday night drinks Chilled beams

Attracts young talented staff

Location by water/city edge

No good food options close

Change rooms for cyclists/runners

Glass elevators in atrium

Green roof garden

Quick break/work escape/refreshing

Focussed work

Atrium

Limited privacy

Visible hierarchy

People are approachable and helpful

Connection to outside

Large and spacious People are spread apart

Intimidating and serious at first

Each floor slightly different

Different materials, textures, flooring, colours

No signs, hard to find people

Company respects staff

Distracting

Awards along pathway

Daily fruit delivery

Structured and defined

Warm and inviting

Informal Stylish

Encouraging interaction

Flexible

Textured and natural

Environmentally sustainable

Legible

Offering freedom and choice

(d)

(c)

Figure 7.18 (Continued )

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

252 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

Figure 7.19 Model of place experience in the transformation of Thai vernacu- lar dwellings. Courtesy of Piyarat Nanta.

entail too broad a scope to include in this chapter. Figure 7.20 summarizes the major considerations presented by Miles and Huberman in their chapter on the topic.83 They remind us that:

We keep the world consistent and predictable by organizing it and interpreting it. The critical question is whether the meanings you find in qualitative data are valid, repeatable, and right.84

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 253

Checking for representativeness

Checking for researcher effects

Triangulation

Weighting the evidence

Checking the meanings of outliers

Using extreme cases

Following up surprises

Looking for negative evidence

Making if-then tests

Ruling out spurious relations

Replicating a finding

Checking out rival explanations

Getting feedback from informants

Data quality

Looking at unpatterns

Testing explanations

Testing with feedback

Figure 7.20 Testing or confirming findings; Miles and Huberman, 1994. Courtesy of SAGE Publications.

Box 7.3

Qualitative Tactics for Practice: A Pre‐/Post-occupancy Evaluation

Faced with the need to update its Atlanta office, the architecture firm Perkins + Will came to the decision to move out of an early‐20th‐century residence that, along with incremental additions, had housed approximately 200 staff (see Figure 7.21). The firm chose to take on the challenge of rehab- bing a vacant office building in the same Peachtree St. area where the firm had been located for nearly 30 years (see Figure 7.22). Conceiving of the project as a “living lab” and educational tool, the firm sought to emphasize its commitments to environmental values and sustainability through its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum status, design excellence, collaborative working strategies, and local community institu- tions, sharing the ground floor of the building with two civic organizations.

(Continued )

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

254 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

With these purposes in mind, Perkins + Will initiated a Pre‐/Post- occupancy Evaluation of the project in 2009, which was concluded in 2012 (see Figure 7.23).a The specific goals for the P/POE were identified as:

• Clarification of project parameters to inform performance objectives. • Evaluation of the performance of the built project in relation to perfor-

mance objectives. • Calibration of the design response to increase satisfaction and

engagement. • Compilation of data to establish a knowledge base for future projects.

The P/POE document, published in 2012, describes in explicit detail the methodology employed to measure the impact of the design. To quote from the report:

Six research tactics inform the P/POE: building performance analysis, plan analysis, interviews, web survey, site observations and focus

Figure 7.21 Original 1382 Peachtree St. house. Image courtesy of Perkins + Will.

a J. Barnes and R. Born, Perkins+Will 1315 Peachtree Street Pre/Post Occupancy (Atlanta: Perkins+Will, 2012).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 255

(Continued )

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

256 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

groups. Each tactic builds on the preceding, resulting in a cumulative understanding of the key issues that the . . . team had to solve. Each tactic is analyzed, a comparison between the pre‐ and post‐occupancy is formed and a final synthesis . . . informs the research conclusions includ- ing best practices and actions to take.b

Among the several tactics mentioned are three (interviews, observa- tions, and focus groups) that were deployed in a predominantly qualitative manner. For example, the one‐on‐one interviews covered themes from sustainability, to thought leadership, to celebration. Most interview themes revealed that pre-occupancy goals were successfully achieved in the new building. One area that suggested a need for ongoing attention concerned strategies for “retaining project memory once the moment of collaboration ends.”c

The site observations were employed to “document and evaluate the actual use and feel of the space, and consider how actual use aligns with planned use.”d The findings were documented with photography and field notes, revealing the following spatial attributes: sense of place, brand identity, individual work zones, and shared support. Among these, the one attribute that seemed to require fine‐tuning was the individual work zones; recommended actions include the development of guidelines for working in an open environment and procedures to reduce the amount of paper storage.

In both the pre‐ and postevaluation phases, focus groups provided “a relaxed, interactive platform for individuals to share their unique

DESIGN PRE-OCCUPANCY

EVALUATION

1. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

2. PLAN ANALYSIS

3. INTERVIEWS

4. WEB SURVEY

5. SITE OBSERVATIONS

6. FOCUS GROUPS

RESULTS

TRACK + COMPARE RESULTS

CONSTRUCTION +

MOVE-IN

How do we challenge design excellence?

Our P/POE includes six data collection tactics used to establish performance metrics and outcomes. These tactics were used prior to occupancy to de” ne design issues and repeated after occupancy to determine the degree to which the design solution performed. It is critical that the data collection tactics used in the pre- occupancy evaluation mirror those used in the post-occupancy evaluation, so as to provide a consistent basis for evaluation. In the following pages, each of these tactics is further explained and the results of each are presented.

OUTCOMES

• TAKE ACTIONABLE STEPS TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT DESIGN AND PROCESSES WHERE NEEDED.

• CAPTURE THE DATA FROM THE PROJECT TO USE AS A BENCHMARK FOR FUTURE DECISION-MAKING.

• APPLY BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED IN FUTURE PROJECTS.

POST- OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

1. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

2. PLAN ANALYSIS

3. INTERVIEWS

4. WEB SURVEY

5. SITE OBSERVATIONS

6. FOCUS GROUPS

3-6 MONTHS OCCUPANCY

RESULTS

Figure 7.23 Pre‐/Postevaluation phases for Peachtree St. office building. Image courtesy of Perkins + Will, 2012.

b Ibid., 12. c Ibid., 97. d Ibid., 141.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 257

7 . 5 c o n c lu S I o n : S t R e n g t h S a n d w e a k n e S S e S

Although there are certainly subtle, but important, differences between the several qualitative schools of thought, their overall strengths and weaknesses are substan- tially comparable (see Figure 7.24). The major strengths of qualitative research flow from its capacity to take in the rich and holistic qualities of real‐life circumstances or settings. It is also inherently more flexible in its design and procedures, allowing adjustments to be made as the research proceeds. As such it is especially appropriate understanding the meanings and processes of people’s activities and artifacts.

However, these very significant advantages come with some costs. Not least, researchers wishing to employ a qualitative research design will find relatively few “road maps” or step‐by‐step guidelines in the literature; the researcher is thus obliged to exercise great care and thoughtfulness throughout the research study.

perspectives and goals. . . .e The group conversations produced a number of insights, particularly with respect to the following topics: aesthetics, brand, client focus, collaboration, flexibility, and location. One area that emerged as fruitful to explore is how better to seat project teams to in- crease interdisciplinary collaboration.

In sum, the combination of the several assessment tactics led to the iden- tification of five major themes: transformative design; sustainable systems, brand experience, high-performance workplace, and interdisciplinary col- laboration. This integrative “meta‐analysis” underscores the robust and multifaceted nature of the P/POE process in this context.

e Ibid., 157.

Strengths Weaknesses

Capacity to take in rich and holistic qualities of real-life circumstances

Challenge of dealing with vast quantities of data

Flexibility in design and procedures allowing adjustments in process

Few guidelines or step-by-step procedures established

Sensitivity to meanings and processes of artifacts and people’s activities

The credibility of qualitative data can be seen as suspect with the postpositivist paradigm

Figure 7.24 Qualitative research strengths and weaknesses.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

258 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

The second major challenge concerns the vast amount of unstructured data that must be coded or analyzed in some way, a task that is enormously time consuming. It is no exaggeration to say that many researchers spend literally years working through the many facets of their qualitative data. And thirdly, for researchers work- ing in fields where a more rationalistic paradigm holds sway, the “trustworthiness” of qualitative data may remain suspect, despite the efforts of qualitative methodolo- gists to provide systematic alternatives.

In the end, however, the apparent tendency, in fields such as architecture, to give credence to qualitative research through the peer review processes of scholarly journals and conference groups suggests that the role of the qualitative strategy will continue to grow as an important line of research.

n o t e S

1. Dana Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991). 2. Ibid., 7. 3. Ibid., 6. 4. Donna Wheatley, Branded Spaces: Mental Mapping of Architectural Design and

Experience. PhD dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2010. 5. Ibid., 1.1. 6. Ibid., 3.11–3.14. 7. Ibid., 3.17. 8. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry (Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998), 3. 9. John W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Ap-

proaches (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007), 43. 10. Wheatley, 3.4. 11. Linda N. Groat and Sherry Ahrentzen, “Voices for Change in Architectural Education:

Seven Facets of Transformation from the Perspectives of Faculty Women,” Journal of Architectural Education (1997): 273.

12. Denzin and Lincoln, 3. 13. Karen Keddy, Embodied Professionalism: The Relationship between the Physical Nature of

Nursing Work and Nursing Spaces. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin‐ Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, 2006.

14. Karen Keddy, New Methods of Researching Healthcare Facility Users: The Nursing Workspace. Paper presented at the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (May 2009), 3.

15. Ibid., 4. 16. Ibid., 7. 17. Cuff, 9.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 259

18. Groat and Ahrentzen, 273. 19. Creswell, 43. 20. Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang, Building Community: A New Future for Architecture

Education and Practice (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996).

21. Groat and Ahrentzen, 273. 22. Anselm Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (New York: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, 1987), 11. 23. Gaye Tuchman, “Historical Social Sciences: Methodologies, Methods, and Meanings,”

in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998), 225–260.

24. Ibid., 249. 25. Paul Atkinson and Martyn Hammersley, “Ethnography and Participant Observation,”

in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998), 110–136.

26. Alfred Radcliffe‐Brown, as quoted in Giampietro Gobo, “Ethnography,” in D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2011), 18.

27. Atkinson and Hammersley, 111. 28. Gobo, 17. 29. Cuff, 5. 30. Piyarat Nanta, Social Change and the Thai House: A Study of Transformation in the

Traditional Dwelling of Central Thailand. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2009.

31. Ibid., 71–72. 32. Ibid., 78–86. 33. Gobo, 17. 34. Timothy Auburn and Rebecca Barnes, “Producing Place: A Neo‐Schutzian Perspective

on the ‘Psychology of Place,’” Journal of Environmental Psychology (2006): 39. 35. Creswell, 59. 36. Thomas Schwandt, Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms (Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE, 1998): 221. 37. Zina O’Leary, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project (Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE, 2010), 120. 38. David Seamon, “A Way of Seeing People and Place: Phenomenology in Environment‐

Behavior Research,” in S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, and H. Minami (eds.), Theo- retical Perspectives in Environment‐Behavior Research (New York: Plenum, 2000), 157–178.

39. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (New York: Orion Press, 1964); Edward Relph, Place and Placelessness (London: Pion, 1976); Christian Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (New York: Rizzoli, 1980); and Thomas Thiis-Evensen, Archetypes in Architecture (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1990).

40. Seamon, 7.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

260 Part II: Seven Research Strategies

41. Francis Violich, “Towards Revealing a Sense of Place,” in D. Seamon and R. Mugerauer (eds.), Dwelling , Place and Environment (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985), 113–136.

42. Ingrid Stefanovic, “Phenomenological Encounters with Place: Cavtat to Square One,” Journal of Environmental Psychology (1998): 42.

43. Ibid., 42–43. 44. Schwandt, 223. 45. Linda Groat, “Place, Aesthetic Evaluation and Home,” in Linda Groat (ed.), Giving

Places Meaning (London: Academic Press, 1995), 1–26. 46. David Canter, “Understanding, Assessing and Acting in Places: Is an Integrative

Framework Possible?” Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental Cognition and Assessment (Umea, Sweden: University of Umea, 1988).

47. Seamon, 9. 48. R. von Eckartsberg, as quoted in Seamon, ibid., 9. 49. Maire O’Neill, “Corporeal Experience: A Haptic Way of Knowing,” Journal of Architec-

tural Education (2001): 3–12. 50. Ibid., 5. 51. Ibid., 10. 52. Ibid., 11. 53. John Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches

(Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998 ed.), 53. 54. Auburn and Barnes, 38–50. 55. Lynn Butler‐Kisber, Qualitative Inquiry: Thematic, Narrative and Arts‐Informed Perspec-

tives (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010), 52. 56. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine, 1967); Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, Time for Dying (Chicago: Aldine, 1968).

57. Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2006), 6.

58. Ibid., 7. 59. Anselm Strauss and Juliette Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE, 1998), 12. 60. Charmaz, 11. 61. Strauss, 19. 62. Wheatley, 3.16. 63. Strauss, 18. 64. Ibid., 11. 65. Charmaz, 10. 66. Ibid., 9. 67. Ibid., 10. 68. Linda Finlay, “Debating Phenomenological Research Methods,” Phenomenology &

Practice (2009): 6–25.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Qualitative Research 261

69. Ibid., 16. 70. Keddy, 1. 71. Finlay, 17. 72. Keddy, 55. 73. Gobo, 24. 74. Charmaz, 2. 75. Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed.

(Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1994). 76. Creswell, 43. 77. Barbara Czarniawska, A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies (Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE, 1998). 78. John Zeisel, “Observing Physical Traces,” in Inquiry by Design (New York: W. W. Norton,

2006), 159–190. 79. Clare Cooper Marcus, House as Mirror of Self (Berkeley, CA: Conari Press, 1995). 80. O’Leary, 263. 81. Miles and Huberman, 67. 82. Wheatley, 3.18. 83. Miles and Huberman, 245–246, 263. 84. Ibid., 245.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

3. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed