INTRODUCTION

As already reviewed, the construction of a disciplinary frame to observe communication in design studios is inherently multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary.

Once a disciplinary framework is set in Chapter II, this chapter is dedicated to the

resources required to conduct this research within that given frame, and specifically the methods utilised to identify and record the relevant modes of communication embedded within the investigated studio interactions: AR-supported face-to-face communication and online communication using Wikis. For such purpose, each fieldwork setting is here described and its associated research rationale, methods and techniques are detailed. Likewise the practicalities, challenges and limitations considered to access the site, observe the relevant actions, and record data are here mentioned.

“Data” here is considered as a twofold resource. Firstly, it serves as the raw material that allows constructing the outputs of this research by following a grounded theory methodology (a conceptual vocabulary, a pedagogical framework and a theory). Data is then gathered by several means in different contexts, and contributes with the relevant incidents that provide a ground for the coding and subsequent incrementally refined theoretical construction process. On the other hand, additional information has been collected to allow a more accurate interpretation of the data, a deeper understanding of the informants’ perspectives and insights, and a resulting more comprehensive description of the observed communication phenomena in context.

Considering the different international fieldwork settings and cultural backgrounds of the informants, this information became an invaluable resource to situate the observations and keep moving through the research process. In that sense, the array of methods presented in this Chapter are not only those devoted to collect data for the construction of the theoretical outputs, but encompass a broader and more comprehensive review of how fieldwork was conducted in various design studio settings.

3.1.1. Structure of the Chapter

Each fieldwork setting has been selected to incrementally contribute with additional data to the research process, therefore methods vary accordingly. It must

48

be recalled that after the construction of the disciplinary framework, this set of methods have been tailored to fit within and, as a result, the methods described here are pertinently aligned with ethnographic research techniques (e.g. participant observations, interviews with informants, records of on-line communication, among others), and therefore with qualitative research methods. This distinction is relevant considering that quantitative methods can be also utilised as a resource of a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) - yet have not need utilised in this research, given its approach focused on observing a social setting rather than on measuring specific variables.

In a more detailed account of the canons and criteria for selecting research methods in the context of a grounded theory, Corbin & Strauss (1990) address the distinction between the qualitative and quantitative canons and procedures, including those that until then were usually associated with quantitative research such as significance or generalisability. As later published by Glaser & Strauss (1994), both types of data can be utilised (in some contexts, actually, they claim that the mix between both approaches might be necessary) and yet, it has been mostly adopted by qualitative researchers from various fields by various reasons. As a result, this trend has granted grounded theory with a mostly qualitative nature through the development of additional theoretical and disciplinary underpins, procedural guidelines and canons for “good science” from a qualitative perspective.

First, a set of methods to explore face-to-face interactions in design studios using AR technologies are described. In order to observe, record and subsequently analyse the intended modes of communication (speech, gestures and actions upon models) video recordings of design critique sessions are utilised, as well as interviews with informants and participant observations in two parallel design studios, on an overall timeframe of 3 weeks.

Following this section, a series of methods to observe on-line communication, and particularly the modes of interaction comprised by text, images and layout in such environments are described. Differently from the previous experience focused on face-to-face interaction, this group of methods addresses the need to understand students’ work outside studio teaching hours, therefore a constant monitoring of the groups’ work was required throughout a longer time span of fieldwork research.

49 techniques used to explore the applicability of the resulting outputs of this research, in context. Grounded theory produces outputs that are inherently applicable to its context of operation. Nevertheless further investigation was conducted by understanding how different instructors, their teaching approaches and their perceptions about technology-enhanced learning affect the limits of applicability of the theory in different educational scenarios. For this purpose, a group of anonymous semi-structured interviews with design instructors as well as observations in design studios were conducted at the Liverpool School of Architecture.

Finally, the last section of the Chapter presents a summary of the utilised methods and reflects upon the challenges, limitations, and further work to be considered to build a methodological apparatus to explore the architectural design studio as a social setting. The Chapter ends by drawing upon conclusions and the compliance of the proposed methods with the objectives of this work.