Which are the Future Cities of the world?
This is a five-part web documentary by Yvonne Brandwijk (photographer) and Stephanie Bakker (journalist) that tries to answer which cities are looking to outstrip the current megacities in terms of growth, innovation and creativity.
The two creators examine 5 cities; Kinshasa, Lima, Yangon, Medellin and Addis Ababa. They look at the world behind the demographics and search what energy drives them change and innovation. All videos are incredibly interesting and refreshing to see. Check them out!
Image available here
RCA Report on the nature of design with a capital D
- central concern is “the conception and realization of new things”
- it encompasses the appreciation of “material culture” and the application of “the arts of planning, inventing, making and doing.”
- at its core is the ‘language’ of ‘modelling’; it is possible to develop students’ aptitudes in this ‘language’, equivalent to aptitudes in the ‘language’ of the sciences – numeracy – and the ‘language’ of humanities – literacy
- design has its own distinct ‘things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them’
Education in any of these ‘cultures’ entails the following three aspects:
- the transmission of knowledge about a phenomenon of study
- a training in the appropriate methods of enquiry
- an initiation into the belief systems and values of the ‘culture’
If we contrast the sciences, the humanities, and design under each aspect, we may become clearer of what we mean by design, and what is particular to it.
the phenomenon of study in each culture is:
- in the sciences: the natural world
- in the humanities: human experience
- in design: the man-made world
the appropriate methods in each culture are:
- in the sciences: controlled experiment, classification, analysis
- in the humanities: analogy, metaphor, criticism, evaluation
- in design: modelling, pattern-formation, synthesis
the values of each culture are:
- in the sciences: objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for ‘truth’
- in the humanities: subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for ‘justice’
- in design: practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern for ‘appropriateness’
Perhaps it would be better to regard the ‘third culture’ as technology, rather than design (…) Technology involves a synthesis of knowledge and skills from both the sciences and the humanities, in the pursuit of practical tasks.
Cross, N., 1982. Designerly ways of knowling. In Design Studies, Vol. 3, no. 4 pp. 221-227
Image available here
- university research often detracts from the quality of teaching (Pocklington and Tupper 2002: 7)
- courses taught by those at the cutting edge of research will necessarily be of higher quality than those taught by those merely using the research results of others – whatever the apparent quality of their style of delivery (Lee 2004: 9)
- there is clear evidence from a range of studies in different types of institutions of students valuing learning in a research-based environment (Jenkins 2004: 29)
- students are likely to gain most benefit from research, in terms of depth of learning and understanding, when they are also involved in research (Healey and Roberts 2004)
A range of terms is used in the literature, often interchangeably, to describe the research-teaching nexus. Griffiths (2004) suggests that a distinction might be made between teaching which is predominantly:
- Research-led: where students learn about research findings, the curriculum content is dominated by staff research interests, and information transmission is the main teaching mode;
- Research-oriented: where students learn about research processes, the curriculum emphasizes as much the processes by which knowledge is produced as learning knowledge that has been achieved, and staff try to engender a research ethos through their teaching;
- Research-based: where students learn as researchers, the curriculum is largely designed around inquiry-based activities, and the division of roles between teacher and student is minimized
- Research-tutored: top left quadrant, which, although not recognized by Griffiths (2004), is student-focused and emphasizes research content (see image above)
research is context specific and multidisciplinary rather than pure and discipline based; it has social relevance rather than being hypothesis led; it uses fuzzy, rather than empirically based data; it is problem solving rather than deductive. In what might be termed the commodification of knowledge, how knowledge is managed, synthesized and adapted become as important as knowledge itself (Jenkins and Zetter, 2003: 11)
Healey, M., 2005. Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In Barnett, R (ed) (2005) Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. McGraw Hill / Open University Press, pp.67-78
Image available here
UCL’s twenty-year vision and a wholesale commitment to changing programs of study/ its goal is to enable students to participate in research and inquiry throughout their education/ allows students to make connections both vertically across a program’s year groups and horizontally across disciplinary divides, even beyond the university setting/ research-based education aspires to widen the notion of what constitutes legitimate research and who has the authority to contribute to it.
The University is changing: new ways of knowing in order to thrive in a unknown future/ in the age of supercomplexity a new epistemology for the university awaits, one that is open, bold, engaging, accessible, and conscious of its own insecurity (Barnett)
SIX DIMENSIONS OF CONNECTIVITY
- students are encouraged to connect with staff and learn about ongoing research
- connected sequence of research activities throughout students’ programs (scaffolding)
- research is inherently social/ students are encouraged to connect their learning across the subjects they are taking and with the wider world
- students are encouraged to connect academic learning with workplace learning and develop a full range of professional attributes and skills
- assessments: critical questions concerning their forms or types of skills they address
- interpersonal connections between people from different disciplines, cultures and backgrounds
Carnell, B., 2017. Towards a connected curriculum in architectural education: research-based education in practice. In Charrette 4(1) Spring 2017, pp. 14-26
Image available here
The model derives from observing that two key driving forces shape the operation, management and organization of every architecture firm: first, its choice of technology (particular project operating system or process employed by the firm), and second, the collective values of the principals of the firm (Values refers to the personal goals and motivation of the principals in charge of the firm).
In regard to technology:
- In general: Brains (expertise) firms: they offer the smartest kid on the block/ In architecture: Strong-idea, organized to deliver singular expertise or innovation on unique projects.
- In general: Gray-hair (experience) firms: they customize ideas, but rarely are positioned at the cutting edge/ In architecture: Strong-service organized to deliver experience and reliability, especially on complex assignments
- In general: Procedure (execution) firms: they offer a prompt start, quick disposition and low cost/ In architecture: Strong-delivery, organized to provide highly efficient service on similar or more-routine assignments, often to clients who seek more of a product than a service
In regard to values:
Practice, as defined by Webster, is “the carrying on or exercise of a profession or occupation as a way of life.” Business, on the other hand, is defined as a “commercial or mercantile activity customarily engaged in as a means of livelihood.”
Practice-centered professionals typically have as their major goal the opportunity to serve others and produce examples of the discipline they represent. Their bottom line is qualitative: How do we feel about what we are doing? How did the job come out?
Business-centered professionals more likely have as their personal objective a quantitative bottom line, which is more focused on the tangible rewards of their efforts: How did we do?
Weld Coxe, Hon. AIA; Nina F. Hartung; Hugh, H. Hochberg; Brian J. Lewis, UDavid H. MaisterU,, Robert F. Mattox, FAIA; and Peter A. Piven, FAIA, 1986. Charting Your Course: Master strategies for organizing and managing architecture firms. In Architectural Technology, (May/June 1986), pp. 52-58. Retrieved here
Image available here
- Cuff, 1991/Nicol-Pilling, 2000: rich social dynamic and socialized learning in a learning setting form a central plank of the studio-based pedagogy for arch design. Although studio learning has historically utilized the cohort, peer interaction has further potential to alleviate the detrimental effects of power that can manifest themselves in tutor-student relationships.
- Parnell, 2001: The social dimensions of the studio and the opportunity for collaboration and sharing act as stimulants to learning
- Fisher, 1991: fraternity culture, it is the culture of the studio that acquires lasting significance for students
- Costa-Kallick, 1991: critical friend_it enables a form of peer to peer dialogue that directly parallels the kinds of conversation that occur between students in the learning process
- Dutton, 1991: peer to peer relationships are relatively free from the symptoms of power asymmetries
- Schaffer, 2003: learning takes place through the internalization of social processes of evaluation and that the norms of the community become a framework for individual thinking and individual identity
- Boud, 2001: peer learning promotes other facets of learning such as team working, the management of personal learning and judgment and the ability to critique both self and others
- Anthony, 1991: informal dialogue and formalized learning offers the students the possibility to obtain multiple perspectives and opportunity for continuous discourse. The nature of the studio means that students are exposed to numerous, frequently conflicting perspectives which can present challenges, especially during the early stages of study.
- Klebesadel-Kornetsky, 2009: critique, as a mode of offering structured and unstructured feedback is a mode that is shared by all the creative arts
- Bruffee, 1999: constructive conversation as a means to harness peer interaction, socialization and critical dialogue
- Piaget, 1985: co-operation as central to the development of reflection, discourse and critical abilities
- Vygotsky, 1986: zone of proximal development term that described how social interaction constitutes a necessary component for full cognitive development to be achieved
- Flavell, 1985-Stahl, 1992: cognitive and meta-cognitive processes of knowledge construction contradict the common assumption that knowledge is effectively conveyed from tutor to student in feedback processes. Student learning was found to be conditioned by the individuals’ existing knowledge and understanding, against which new information is aligned creating either a deepening of knowledge or leading to previous knowledge being revised.
- Askew, 2000: power has a profound relationship to feedback, whether formative or summative
- Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006: peer interaction occurs where student progress generates dialogue and criticism
- Mezirow, 1997: there are instances when students actively seek the authority of the tutor and points where power can be constructively channelled to challenge and stretch students through shifting their frames of reference in ways that peer dialogue is unlikely to achieve
- Rowntree, 1977: feedback is fundamental to effective learning
David McClean & Neasa Hourigan, 2013. Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer
Interaction and Feedback. In Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8:1, 35-57
Image of Macquarie University Social Learning Space / Bennett and Trimble is available here
Cultural-historical activity theory was initiated by Lev Vygotsky (1978) in the 1920s and early 1930s. It was further developed by Vygotsky’s colleague and disciple Alexei Leont’ev (1978, 1981). In my reading, activity theory has evolved through three generations of research (Engeström, 1996).
- The first generation, centered around Vygotsky, created the idea of mediation (…) Vygotsky’s idea of cultural mediation of actions is commonly expressed as the triad of subject, object, and mediating artifact (…) Objects became cultural entities and the object-orientedness of action became the key to understanding human psyche (…) The limitation of the first generation was that the unit of analysis remained individually focused.
- The second generation, centered around Leont’ev (…) Leont’ev explicated the crucial difference between an individual action and a collective activity (…) object-oriented actions are always, explicitly or implicitly, characterized by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense-making, and potential for change. The concept of activity took the paradigm a huge step forward in that it turned the focus on complex interrelations between the individual subject and his or her community.
- The third generation of activity theory needs to develop conceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives, and networks of interacting activity systems (…) Wertsch (1991) introduced Bakhtin’s (1981) ideas on dialogicality as a way to expand the Vygotskian framework. Ritva Engeström (1995) went a step further by pulling together Bakhtin’s ideas and Leont’ev’s concept of activity, and others have developed notions of activity networks, discussed Latour’s actor-network theory, and elaborated the concept of boundary crossing within activity theory.
In its current shape, activity theory may be summarized with the help of five principles:
- a collective, artifact-mediated and object-oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the prime unit of analysis
- the multi-voicedness of activity systems
- historicity as activity systems take shape and get transformed over lengthy periods of time
- central role of contradictions as sources of change and development
- possibility of expansive transformations in activity systems
Expansion is a form of learning that transcends linear and socio-spatial dimensions of individual and short-lived actions (…) learning is understood in the broader and temporally much longer perspective of a third dimension, that is, the dimension of the development of the activity (…) Expansion is the result of a transition process from actions currently performed by individuals to a new collective activity (…) A transition from action to activity is considered expansive when it involves the objective transformation of the actions themselves and when subjects become aware of the contradictions in their current activity in the perspective of a new form of activity.
Cambridge University Press. Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Edited by Annalisa Sannino, Harry Daniels and Kris D. Gutierrez Frontmatter, 978-0-521-76075-1.
Yrjö Engeström. Expansive learning: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization.
Image available here (Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133–156. Taylor & Francis)