THE USE OF CASE STUDIES TO EVALUATE ARCHITECTURAL SPACES

by Dr. Mikael Powell

 
            Educational case study model.
            Stake (1997a), a long-time researcher and developer of the case study method, declared that case studies are “one of the most popular, and usually respected, forms for studying educators and educational programs” (p.401).  In the following discussion, I outline his commentary on the elements of case studies with regard to purpose, process, the researcher, intended audience, and establishment of credibility.
            Stake examined the purposes of case studies and admitted that they do not necessarily provide a comprehensive remedy to a specific circumstance; rather, they shed light on problems that may be transferable to other situations.  One may not find that the “particulars [of the case study are] generalizable, but the systematicity [methodical organization]” (Stake, 1997a, p. 403) may help to identify and analyze those other situations.  Consequently, the extent of the case must be defined by clear boundaries to understand the limitations of the study.  Therefore, Stake stressed the importance of setting the focus, timeframe, and theme.  Stake said that the usual audiences, fellow researchers, “have appreciated deep, self-referential probes of problems” (p. 401).  It is said of the researcher, that “this was his story, …his construction of truth” (Stake, p. 409), and researchers look for “patterns, co-variations, and regularities that beg for better interpretation” (Stake, p. 408).  So, it is common in the practice of case studies to employ subjective interpretation or to interact with the subject or the phenomenon.  However, despite this subjectivity and personal involvement of the researcher, as will be discussed in Chapter Four, a case study is a reliable means of inquiry that can incorporate qualitative, quantitative and mixed method research.

Stake also said that a researcher should try to get a reader engaged in the story, but Stake stated what a case study is not:

It is not like a newspaper story.  There are some important similarities.  Both are trying to develop an understanding through the description of what, where, how, when and why.  Both use narrative and testimony.  The difference is in the use of theme.  The reporter tries to tell the story primarily to be interesting to the reader.  The case researcher starts out looking for what is meaningful to researchers but simultaneously tries to discover what is meaningful to the case people.  Really, the case is precious [paramount].  (Stake, 1997a, p. 404)

There are some drawbacks to case study research.  If one were looking for trends across several different instances, this strategy is not ideal to discover those patterns, but Stake suggested that, oftentimes, the documentation of common/ordinary occurrences and key players in a particular case study may highlight personal  and administrative weaknesses that exist in other settings that were previously overlooked. 

            Lastly, in establishing the credibility of the case, Stake advised researchers to consider elements within the study that reinforce the accuracy of the work, and the overall rigor of the research.  It is helpful to the reader if documentation is included in the case study that buttresses the research, like including relevant information in the appendices (I discuss my methods of triangulation and supporting documents in Chapter Three).

            Architectural case study model.

Like Stake’s assessment that format and methods for case studies vary widely, there is no one model for an architectural case study.  I review two of the most prominent types.  One is an academic version developed by architecture and design practitioners in a university setting.  Another, was produced in a commercial environment by practitioners directly involved in the architecture and construction industry.
            Dr. Dilanthi Amaratunga, director of the Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment at the University of Salford (Amaratunga & Baldry 2001) concurs with Stake’s (1997a) understanding of the requirements of case study that examine the process of a singular instance.  Amaratunga and Baldry (2001) wrote that in architecture “case studies are tailor made for exploring new processes or behaviours or ones which are little understood.  In this sense, case studies have an important function in generating hypotheses and building theory in built environment research” (p. 13).  In addition, architectural case studies tend to focus on the functioning of a facility or space and examine not only the existing space but the “historical context of its design” (Alizadeh, 2006, p.  57).  Amaratunga and Baldry described the philosophies of conducting architectural research:

In research design, therefore, the issue then becomes not whether one has uniformly adhered to prescribed canons of either logical positivism or phenomenology but whether one has made sensible methods decisions given the purpose of the study, the questions being investigated, and the resources available. (p. 3)

Ultimately, the purpose of this case study research method is to add to existing knowledge in a way that advances understanding by providing a solution or asking better questions.  Amaratunga and Baldry said that a case study should not be used to reinforce a known fact, rather, this type of research provides the ability “to draw on inductive methods of research, which aim to build theory and generate hypotheses rather than primarily to test them” (p. 14). 
             Alternately, case studies are regularly published by trade magazines like Architectural Record, a national award-winning magazine distributed for over a century by the American Institute of Architects, a non-profit entity, with a circulation of over 70,000.  The magazine is published for the purpose of stimulating and informing its patrons (Architectural Record, 2009a).  The case studies are intended to present “a comprehensive look into construction goals, plans and implementation [offering]…the very best of analyses, case studies and write ups by expert architects” (Architectural Record 2009b, para. 6).  The intended recipients are design students and professionals, and those individuals involved in the architecture industry around the world.  Gonchar (2008), a senior editor who focuses on building science and technology issues at Architectural Record, wrote that the goal of the series of case studies on educational facilities was to provide a comprehensive study of finished schools with an emphasis on innovative and successful strategies. 
            For architectural practitioners, these short case studies with high quality pictorials highlight novel ideas and the incorporation of new technologies.  They are meant to be inspirational, but they do not provide the in-depth coverage nor do they discuss implementation of curriculum at a comprehensive level.  Usually a list of project team members, university administration, and manufacturers of major products and building systems are included, so it seems unlikely that the unsuccessful aspects  or deficiencies of the building projects would be revealed to the readers of the magazine.  I posit that this work is situated somewhere between research and journalism.

Environment-behavior case study model.

In architecture, there is a movement called evidence-based design, which encourages a process to bring verifiable behavioral research into the design of architectural spaces (Hamilton & Watkins, 2009).  This is similar in concept to evidence-based research, a trend in education to stem  “the adoption of instructional programs and practices…driven more by ideology, faddism, politics, and marketing than by evidence” (Slavin, 2008, p. 5) as well as in contemporary medicine to authenticate the usefulness of alternative medicines (Chiappelli, Prolo, Rosenblum, Edgerton, & Cajulis, 2006).  The purpose of an environment-behavior case study is to address the needs of the users of the space, to seek verifiable answers and to evaluate satisfaction of those needs.  Good basic research advances environmental behavior knowledge and aims to close the gap between environmental design and architectural practice.  The researchers are academic professionals and the intended audience is the architectural and academic community.  Rigorous methods establish credibility for this type of case study and the foundation of this research is largely positivist in nature.
            For example, Cherulnik (1993) reports on the Jones dormitory redesign case study for Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, which was conducted by Andrew Baum and Stuart Valins, researchers who have studied crowding behaviors in human populations.  Over a period of three years, they studied two areas of one floor in the existing dormitory at the College.  The spaces varied in social density within their residential units.  The researchers collected data through observation, questionnaires, and discussion groups.  Their findings influenced the redesign of the space.  Cherulnik reported:

The project succeeded in demonstrating a promising approach to environmental-design research, one rooted firmly in the traditions of social science.  It began with a sophisticated conceptual analysis bringing together several separate theories and extensive supporting research from such diverse traditions as ethnology, laboratory experimentation, and naturalistic quasi experimentation.  It continued with dedicated research in the context for which new design solutions were sought, research that was conducted using state-of- the-art methods.  Finally, the design inferred from that research was evaluated with the assistance of careful arrangements that provided experimental comparisons in a natural setting. (Cherulnik, 1993, p. 129)

Much like the architectural case study model, the purpose of this case study was to inform the new redesign and it was essential in the theory supporting the renovation.  Likewise, this study went beyond simply documenting existing fact.  For the architectural practitioner, this type of case study is specific, directly relevant and comprehensive, delivering valuable research information.  It included one simple line drawing illustrating the physicality of the layout, in contrast to the glossy inspirational pictorials of the case studies published in trade magazines.  The Jones dormitory redesign case study is a good example of efficient environment-behavior research in that it is detailed in context, description of place, method, and results.  It goes on to provide favorable comments from students after the dormitory renovation was completed.  Results of this study were incorporated into research that culminated in a post-occupancy evaluation.
            Conclusion.
            The review of the literature on case studies to evaluate the impact of performing corrective measures on the undergraduate teaching and learning experience reveals no one strategy that rigorously examines the relationship of the architectural form to the resulting human behavior and how that shapes the educational process of the course.  While the case study models presented may be successful within their own disciplines, there is not one that meets the needs of all stakeholders.  Likewise, Fulton (1991), when speaking of research on university spaces, found the following:

Many researchers have attempted to establish and report the relationships of

space to learning… Much of this research conceptualizes the relationships from

an architectural point of view.  Other information is found in psychological

frameworks, workplace training, aesthetics, sociology, and human factors engineering.  Even when the relationships of a setting’s physical attributes to learning have been considered within an educational framework, findings frequently have been limited to children and may or may not be applicable to adults (pp. 13 – 14).

            With all this in mind, I turn to another method of researching an existing space, the post-occupancy evaluation.

Reviewing the BUILT ENVIRONMENT for the PEOPLE

by Dr. Mikael Powell
After  review of DeBard’s research on Millennial students, and reflection upon my activities to secure their participation in research, it is clear that a  post-occupancy evaluation to solicit information about the likes and dislikes of the facility, and that considers students, should inquire about matters that students value.  The following are common student value questions for the researcher to consider before creating a unique Building POE survey instrument:

o   Do the common spaces promote community building?

o   Does the classroom support a level of trust for the institution (Is the layout straightforward or misleading)?

o   Does the educational space allow students to do meaningful work in class, or are they constantly moving chairs and equipment, or reconfiguring the learning environment to facilitate classroom activities?

o   Are there Internet and virtual classroom capabilities?

o   Does the classroom contribute to a student’s sense of being in control of his or her educational outcomes?

o   Does the classroom and its layout project institutional control (Are areas positioned to monitor participants in spaces)?

o   Is there a hierarchy of accoutrements or amenities that serves to indicate the ‘nicer’ parts of the building and label by classroom assignment, a student’s position in the institution?

o   Will the post-occupancy evaluation be administered in a way that allows access to answer 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week, online, within a determined evaluation period?

o   Does the classroom have integrity (Is the design trying to project an image that it is not)?

With the proceeding in mind, academic leaders, with design professionals, should develop a pre-evaluation discussion plan prior to administering the POE as a way for students, faculty, and administrators to acknowledge existing conditions and initiate the process to empower users of the space.  A POE that considers the culture of each group as well as power and authority issues, is useful in two ways.  First, an effective pre-assessment discussion plan will give the users skills to review their environment critically, while providing a vehicle for reflection and a dialogue with faculty and administration.  This exchange has the potential to be transformative (Freire, 1970).  Secondly, incorporating tenets of a critical pedagogy into the evaluation criteria may provide questions and answers that enable all to become more fully human, for I contend that inhabiting school facilities that are knowingly inadequate, is dehumanizing; a dialogical airing of issues can be liberating for all constituents.  This pre-evaluation discussion plan may be the first step towards encouraging students and teachers to embrace their power to shape learning experiences through their input in a POE.  For example, the discussion  plan could be developed in line with the theories of Paulo Freire (1970) in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, to train the users of the space to be more critically sensitive to the issues created by teaching and learning in an inadequate physical environment.  Freire wrote that the oppressed (students and/or faculty) must be engaged in a dialog with the oppressor (faculty and/or administration) which illustrates historical conditions (the existing classroom and other situations with inadequate spaces) so as to evoke each participant to critically view the world, recognize causes of oppression, and discover themselves as hosts of the oppressors.  This new insight can aid users to objectify and create new possibilities through reflective participation in the discussion plan that subsequently evokes transforming actions enabling the oppressed to strive to be fully vital and human (in my previous research I reviewed humanization as part of a taxonomy of place in online teaching and hybrid coursework, and also discussed the role of self-efficacy in constructivist instruction).  This new way of evaluation may remedy the level of powerlessness in the class by students and teachers who expressed that they did not control their educational experience.  

The role of Self-Efficacy as a support to Undergraduate Learning

By Dr. Mikael Powell
See https://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/education_dissertations/20  
 Previously, I presented self-efficacy simply as a general predictor of how students rate the significance of their corrective actions. I stated a neutral stance in which an individual ranged on the continuum between internal or external locus of control for a course, derived from my emic perspective as an architect and designer with a degree in psychology. Indeed, both psychologists and space planners seek to understand people and their behaviors “as they are,” to analyze and design for them. However, in this Chapter, I interpret the impact of the research findings as an educator and look at the process and outcomes of the teaching and learning experience. Within a constructivist epistemology, the promotion of self-efficacy enhances the entire process toward achieving consequential learning, and it is supported for the learner by an effective teacher and affirmative social pressures (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). Moreover, hindering the development of self-efficacy due to the strain and hassle of poor classroom design (for instance in the case of Cho Hee) reduces the opportunity for high-order learning (Shea, Hayes et. al, 2014). To that point, Shea and Bidjerano stated, “Negative states, such as stress and anxiety eventuate….in loss of sense of control, and diminished self-efficacy beliefs” (p. 1724).

Small Wins - Big Benefit, by Dr. Mikael Powell

See

https://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/education_dissertations/20 

I toured a number of potential classrooms for observation at several universities to conduct my research, and noticed varying degrees of potential obstructions to the educational process within the physical environments. One significant comment that I received from several participants within the research responses was that the very act of trying to mitigate problems, even though actions did not completely alleviate the issue, was beneficial.

Rhatigan and Schuh (2003) describe how even small interactions with students where faculty and administration extended themselves to support, encourage, or make the environment better for students, have the potential to make great changes in students’ lives. They describe these opportunities as small wins, and say that “when small wins accumulate, people begin to take the view that larger-scale, complex problems can be solved” (p. 18). A post-occupancy evaluation can be a diminutive way to give students some control of their environment and demonstrate that their opinion is valued. Part of asking about their likes and dislikes of the facility, is considering the issues that they value which faculty or administration may not share. Thus, little opportunities to be included in a process can be empowering! The act of opening and closing blinds or turning on and off the heating or lighting system, whether performed by the teacher or as a teacher-student activity, or by students to prepare the space for learning, can serve as subtle ways to acknowledge the role of the physical space in the teaching and learning process, while setting the mood in class and letting students know that the time with them is important. Increasing the font size to make a presentation more legible in a room is, in itself, a modest gesture, but it contributes to small wins. Rhatigan and Schuh state that:

Small wins can produce results that are electrifying and, in some cases, life changing….Our small efforts can produce good outcomes. The good that each one of us does lives on. Faculty and administrators do not want to be among those who limit themselves by lacking imagination, energy, and effort in the small room in the world that has been entrusted to our care (pp. 19–22). What little steps can we take now toward creating an effective environment in which students can learn?