Hypotheses and Test Cases - Author: Julia Williams Robinson & Mike Christenson
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Author: Julia Williams Robinson & Mike Christenson
Chapter Title: Design Studio as Research Site: Generating
Hypotheses and Test Cases
Biography Abstract
Julia Williams Robinson, PhD, FAIA, is Professor of In the discipline of architecture, defined as a re-
Architecture at the University of Minnesota and a search-oriented field within the last twenty years,
registered architect. She is recognized as an Asso- using the studio as a site for research is a contest-
ciation of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Dis- ed idea (Groat and Wang, 2013). Much of the early
tinguished Professor, and Fellow of the American architectural research evolved primarily in techni-
Institute of Architects. In addition to her doctor- cal fields and in the more quantitatively-oriented
al degree from Delft University of Technology, Pro- social sciences such as psychology and sociology,
fessor Robinson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree, a which is not well-suited to work in the design stu-
professional Bachelor of Architecture degree, and dio. On the other hand, the design studio, with its
a Master’s Degree in Anthropology, from the Uni- exploratory orientation, fits well with work that
versity of Minnesota. She is author of many arti- does not test, but develops hypotheses. This pa-
cles, book chapters, and books including Complex per argues for the design studio as a site for explor-
Housing: Designing for Density (Routledge, 2018), In- atory research in which the approach and resulting
stitution and Home: Architecture as a Cultural Medi- cases are addressed with rigor, and presents two
um (Techne Press, 2006), The Discipline of Architec- contrasting approaches to such research.
ture (co-edited with Andrzej Piotrowski, University
of Minnesota Press, 2001), and a monograph: Pro- Key words
gramming as Design (with J. Stephen Weeks, Univer-
sity of Minnesota School of Architecture, 1984). architecture, research, design studio, hypoth-
esis, case study
Mike Christenson, AIA, NCARB, is a licensed archi-
tect, the author of the book Theories and Practices Introduction
of Architectural Representation (Routledge, 2019), and
the Associate Editor for Architectural Computing This chapter proposes using the academic archi-
for the journal Architectural Science Review. Chris- tectural design studio as a site for research. While
tenson’s professional work includes experience at in architecture, it is controversial to see design as
Minneapolis-based Alliiance, on teams in collabo- a valid research methodology (Groat and Wang,
ration with Jean Nouvel on the design of the Guth- 2013), the broader field of design already advocates
rie Theater on the River and in collaboration with this approach ( Joost et al, 2016). However, in the
Cesar Pelli on the design of the Minneapolis Cen- latter context, design is understood as professional
tral Library. Together with Malini Srivastava, he is practice and not professional education.
a Principal Architect in the award-winning archi-
tectural firm Design and Energy Laboratory, LLC. Findeli’s concept of “project-grounded research”
As a Professor of Architecture at the University of requires that questions be framed as projects “con-
Minnesota, he teaches in the areas of design funda- structed anew by the designer-researcher accord-
mentals and digital representation. ing to each situation, through a sort of permanent
1
hermeneutic process.” (2016, 28-9). Design research- facilities. The community had rejected an earli-
ers must uncover “the specific anthropological is- er proposal as too institutional, too large, and in-
sue at stake and ... elaborate the proper research in- accessible. In seeking the best way to serve adju-
quiry,” while designers must “deliver an adequate dicated youth, the county suggested developing a
proposal to the actors/stakeholders” (p. 30). Babbie spectrum of services, including sites for youth in-
addresses three purposes of research: exploration, carceration and treatment.
description and explanation (Babbie, 2016: 90-93).
For Babbie, “[e]xploratory studies ... are essential The research approach incorporated readings, lit-
whenever a researcher is breaking new ground, and erature searches, videos, site visits, precedent anal-
they almost always yield new insights into a top- ysis, expert speakers, and class discussions pre-
ic for research. ... The chief shortcoming of explor- senting issues including racism, trauma-informed
atory studies is that they seldom provide satisfac- design, mental illness, addiction, age of maturity,
tory answers to research questions, though they and innovative incarceration approaches. The stu-
can hint at the answers and can suggest which re- dio visited a youth residential incarceration set-
search methods could provide definitive ones” (91). ting, an adult short-term prison or workhouse, and
Dudovskiy describes exploratory research as inves- a high-end youth addiction treatment center. Ex-
tigations exploring a question’s nature without re- perts, including a youth psychiatrist, architects
quiring conclusive results: “the researcher ought to and interior designers with specialties in incarcer-
be willing to change his/her direction as a result of ation and therapy, prison personnel, and parents of
revelation of new data and new insights” (Dudovs- adjudicated youth, gave presentations and partici-
kiy 2018). pated on design reviews.
Our approach to studio pedagogy as a form of ex- The design approach comprised a preconceptions
ploratory research, following Zeisel’s idea of the exercise exploring normative and innovative atti-
design hypothesis (Zeisel, 1986/2006), is to see it tudes toward incarceration; precedent analyses in-
as a hypothesis-seeking process. The studio oper- cluding traditional, innovative, and normative set-
ates uniquely as an environment for generating tings for adults and youth; sketch models exploring
hypotheses, in that it enables students to uncover relationships between attitudes and architecture;
issues, redefine projects, and deliver proposals, as and program design, site selection, and schematic
mutually reinforcing tactics. Within this context, design (Robinson & Weeks, 1984).
we examine two studios, one taught by each au-
thor, to compare their tactical commonalities and 1.1. Uncovering Issues and Redefining
approaches to the studio as a site for research. the Project (2089)
1.0. RECONCEIVING INCARCERATION STUDIO Precedent analysis covered a range of housing set-
tings engaging cultural attitudes from punitive to
The first studio, led by author Robinson, with par- healing. Analysis revealed that security concerns
ticipation by Dan Treinen, architect at BWBR, and drove the design of American incarceration facili-
Angela Cousins of the Hennepin County Depart- ties in contrast to other forms of housing. Empha-
ment of Community Correction and Rehabilita- sis on security included establishing distance from
tion, combined academic and professional orien- local communities, separating staff space from res-
tations to evidence-based research, for final-year idents, the use of cells and prison bars, and a lack of
undergraduates in the B. S. in Architecture pro- visual and physical access to exterior spaces.
gram. The studio began with Hennepin County’s
desire to address underutilized youth detention
2Based on precedent studies, site visits and person- high-end youth addiction facility, funded by insur-
al experiences, students designed pairs of sketch ance, were 90% Caucasian, with few if any of col-
models representing contrasting attitudes (e. g., or. We learned that incarcerated youth came from
healing, normalization, education, therapy), iden- a few impoverished neighborhoods, and we decid-
tifying design attributes associated with attitudes. ed that our designs should focus on these neigh-
The models revealed the importance of activities borhoods, with the goal of preventing youth from
such as youth 1) making meals and having their getting in trouble.
own room (normalization), 2) having access to nat-
ural settings, the ability to control stimulation We held a class discussion addressing a possible
and of feeling secure (healing), 3) having comfort- care continuum and its implications for our project.
able, adaptable furnishings to personalize settings Informed by statements from class presentations
and provide transition spaces supporting adjust- by parents, we concluded that providing indirect
ment to different settings (therapy), and 4) having family and community support was as important
acoustically and visually calming settings (edu- as directly supporting youth. We analyzed what it
cation). These exercises, alongside expert presen- would mean to have a spectrum of care for a child
tations and site visits, revealed issues such as the at various development stages, and examined what
high proportion of adjudicated youth with men- challenges could arise in each stage and which in-
tal illness, and family trauma (Ford et al, 2007; Di- stitutions and programs might appropriately ad-
erkhising et al, 2013). They reinforced the need to dress these issues (Figure 1). We thus redefined the
pursue therapeutic design, even as incarceration approach from a care continuum for youth to a care
experts stressed a security focus. (From the visits continuum for youth and families.
students learned that only a small proportion of
adult residents require the level of security provid- Our visit to the existing youth detention facility
ed in the facility we visited, and very few youths uncovered problems with its suburban location. A
are so violent that they require high level security.) lack of public transportation restricted access for
low-income parents. Students had to leave their
We theorized that high security associated with in- high schools when in treatment, and the limited
carceration makes people incorrectly fear that for- population reduced educational offerings. Upon
mer youth and adult internees are dangerous, stig- treatment completion, returning youth could no
matizing them upon release. Furthermore, having longer access familiar therapists. These observa-
experienced trauma and mental illness, adjudicat- tions reinforced our decision to focus both on com-
ed youth would benefit from therapeutic environ- munity-based treatment and on small, non-insti-
ments, rather than punishment and high security. tutional settings for 24-hour treatment settings.
The class decided that treating all adjudicated ju-
veniles as potentially violent was unjust, and that Although the original intention was to improve
our work should focus on the 90% or more of adju- conditions at the county facility, uncovering these
dicated youth who were non-violent. issues redefined the problem as one of preventing
incarceration by helping youth in impoverished
We learned from parents that an extreme short- neighborhoods avoid trouble. This public-health
age of mental health treatment leads to unad- approach encompassed youth, their families, and
dressed crises. Youth needing care are often sent their communities in a care continuum no longer
out of state, creating hardship for their families. limited to housing, but instead involving services
Institutionalized racism also became apparent in such as child care, after-school recreational activi-
our site visits: at the county detention facility, all ties for older youth, family and individual therapy,
of the youth were of color, while residents in the
3occupational training, English-language and literacy education, tutoring, college prep, and mentoring for
parents and youth.
Figure 1. Continuum of Care.
41.2. Delivering Proposals to the treatment center after school and return to
their group home for the evening. After complet-
Designing for prevention in neighborhoods with ing their residence term, they could maintain their
large numbers of adjudicated youth required a re- daily pattern, exchanging the family residence for
search orientation to siting. Students identified the group home.
programs addressing neighborhood needs, avoid-
ing duplication of existing services. They designed The use of assumptions, hypotheses, and design
facilities to serve youth and families with services guidelines alongside form-giving and analysis ex-
including localized out-of-home care and transi- ercises helped students see how ideas changed in
tioning back to the community. response to research findings and design -insights.
For final projects, students responded to research
Exercises asked students to develop a program issues as well as to context, proposing a neighbor-
with two alternative formal arrangements and to hood mental health center for adolescents, a park
analyze two alternative sites, placing the designs facility including athletics and a spectrum of af-
on each site thus creating four alternative designs, ter-school and therapeutic services, a pre-school
from which one was chosen to develop. program that would identify handicaps and train
parents to deal with their handicapped offspring,
One student proposed bringing youth treatment and a neighborhood residential facility for adjudi-
to local communities. His project (Figure 2) pro- cated youth, training them for occupations in art,
posed small group homes as housing for youth technology, or shop.
with specialized problems (mental health, home-
lessness, etc.). These residences would share an af- 1.3. The Hypotheses
ter-school treatment and activity center near fam-
ilies and local high schools. The residents would The design studio is a site of exploratory research
sleep in the group home, attend a local school, go with hypotheses as product. Such hypotheses,
Figure 2. Community-Based Adolescent Care, Luke Walsh, Reconceiving Youth Incarceration Undergraduate Stu-
dio 5, Fall 2018
5whether relating to physical design or to ideas Hypothesis: Many youths are incarcerated be-
about treatment are architectural because they cause of mental illness and addiction. Instead
generate program and thus affect built form. Cre- of being incarcerated as criminals, these young
ating and comparing alternatives at every design people should receive treatment for their prob-
phase revealed how architecture communicates lems. Small mental health and addition facil-
ideas and affects actions, directly influencing hy- ities should be provided for adolescents in lo-
potheses. For example, comparing precedents and cal communities.
designing contrasting spaces revealed the effects
of security measures (e. g., durable materials, the Hypothesis: By providing facilities in local com-
ability to personalize space, and the communica- munities for young people and families that
tion of criminality rather than normalization). assist with activities such as parenting, child
Designing a care continuum influenced by issues care, family counseling and support, job train-
raised by parents and other experts, when applied ing, literacy training, college preparation, men-
to sites, revealed resources and service gaps affect- toring, and after-school activities designed for
ing hypothesis development. Student projects re- older youth (including athletic recreation, ex-
sponded to hypotheses, indicating possible imple- pressive arts, digital and other skills devel-
mentation in architectural form. opment, and tutoring), families will be more
able to address the needs of their youth mem-
Based on research findings and student designs, a bers, and the young people will be less likely to
set of twelve hypotheses were developed concern- get in trouble.
ing treatment and its architectural implications.
The hypotheses include research assumptions on Student presentations combined models, imag-
problem description, theorizing about design’s pos- es, and words. Written components included an-
sible effect, and directives connecting design ele- notations on drawings and models detailing ob-
ments to hypotheses. The following are examples servations and design decisions, assumptions,
of hypotheses linking research findings to design: hypotheses, and design directives (descriptions
of the elements of design that achieve the in-
Hypothesis: Creating hyper-secure incarcera- tended outcomes).
tion facilities stigmatizes incarcerated peo-
ple and prevents them from living in normal 2.0. THE BORDER-CROSSING STUDIO
housing. Only extremely dangerous people
should be placed in high level security facili- The second studio, led by author Christenson, was
ties. Others should be housed in what Nirje de- an instance of the Integrated Design Studio in the
scribes as “providing the conditions of every- second year of the University’s professional M.
day life which are as close as possible to the Arch. degree program. As such, the studio was ex-
norms and patterns of society’s mainstream” pected to address relevant external accreditation
(1969: 181). As Europeans are learning, remov- criteria related to integrated building design.
al from one’s own home is sufficient punish-
ment (Benko, 2015). Within this context, students were expected to me-
diate between diverse and potentially conflicting
Hypothesis: It is counter-productive to incarcer- forces (e. g., between structural questions, materi-
ate youth. They should be considered as trou- al questions, legal issues, project costs, and polit-
bled youth, their problems should be addressed, ical issues). This mediation positioned the studio
and unless they are dangerous, they should re- as a research-based studio in two ways. First, stu-
main in their communities. dents conducted background research into factors
6such as building codes, construction materials, able multiple constituencies to interact and conse-
and costs. Second, students confronted open-end- quently bring differing expectations and practices
ed and somewhat ill-defined questions demanding into overlap and conflict. In the case of a norma-
architecturally specific response. tive border-crossing station, a power imbalance is
enforced in which staff have the ability to evaluate
The pedagogy focused on the question of architec- and assess the bona fides of visitors, but the vis-
ture as interface, where interface referred to a de- itors are essentially powerless to evaluate and as-
signed entity through which perception is filtered. sess the staff. In short, the architectural interface
An architectural interface could be a building, or of the border-crossing station establishes specific
a wall, or a window; less obviously, an interface behavioral expectations and power differentials for
could be a drawing of a building. Thus, an inter- distinct populations.
face enables multiple constituencies to interact, to
exchange ideas, and to negotiate priorities. A bor- 2.2. Redefining The Project
der-crossing station is an appropriate vehicle to test
these ideas because it constitutes a designed entity As students moved beyond a review of existing con-
that is obligated to mediate between two sociopo- ditions, they began to explicitly question implied
litical constructs (Mexico and the United States). and explicit priorities. Many students came to view
the normative assumptions as unfairly and inap-
The studio deliberately conflated “research tasks” propriately valuing procedure and security over
with “design tasks.” The trivial example of ascer- foundational expectations of human decency. Con-
taining the dimensions or precise character of an sequently, some students proposed redefinitions of
existing site condition – a task normally associat- the received program, implying a loosening of re-
ed with research, with interpreting and translating quirements associated with spatial sequencing,
information from external sources – was pedagog- even to the point of suggesting erasure of the in-
ically positioned as a task of design, as a negotiated ternational border, with the border-crossing sta-
and iterative process in which representational ar- tion transforming into something less like a gate
tifacts (drawings and models) were called into ser- and more like a point of destination.
vice to sustain a shared understanding.
2.1. Uncovering Issues
This active questioning proceeded into other di-
Through their review of existing literature, stu- mensions of the proposals. For example, students
dents identified normative conditions, e. g., the im- were required to design a strategy for ventilation
portance of spatial sequencing regarding the pro- of the proposed building. Although it was not re-
cessing of non-citizen entrants, and the privileging quired that this strategy be mechanical (i. e., in-
of security over entrants’ ability to move freely. A volving fans, artificial cooling, etc.), several stu-
normative condition assumes that person-to-per- dents began by assuming that the building would
son interactions will take place across counters or be artificially air-conditioned. Over time, supported
through windows, that individual movement will by background research into ventilation strategies
take place through a sequence of distinct spaces, traditionally employed in hot, dry climates, stu-
and that movement will be constrained by doors or dents identified potentials of natural ventilation.
gates operating according to rules. This enabled a simplification in spatial boundary
conditions, and in some cases the abandonment of
Yet, as students discerned through their itera- airtight, artificially-controlled environments. Stat-
tive design processes, architectural interfaces en- ed differently, once the students began to model
7their design approaches after traditional hot-dry- Her project questions the dual premises of separa-
climate building practices, their designs became tion and channeling and instead problematizes the
simpler in execution; specific boundary conditions, act of crossing as one of interaction and discovery.
previously seen as imperative to the functioning of In all of these ways, the project was redefined from
the border-crossing station, began to loosen. an exercise in adhering to strict criteria into one
which actively questioned the appropriateness of
This loosening inevitably raised new questions. those criteria and of assumptions concerning the
Practically, it prompted students to ask whether border-crossing station’s function and political po-
the border-crossing station could abandon – by de- sition on a contentious international border. More
gree – its assumed obligations to boundaries, secu- generally, the act of redefining the project explicit-
rity functions, and spatially-sequenced procedures ly acknowledged that student work could raise ar-
while continuing to function effectively. Political- chitecturally specific questions in ways that were
ly, many students speculated that abandoning se- simultaneously mundane and provocative.
curity requirements in favor of a more open ap-
proach could be appropriate and even desirable. 2.3. Delivering Proposals and Gener-
ating Hypotheses
One student’s work in particular demonstrated
possibilities inherent in loosening boundary con- Normative practice for the final meeting of an ar-
ditions. She proposed a spatial dispersal of the bor- chitecture design studio requires individual stu-
der-crossing station, in which the “line” of the bor- dents to verbally present their completed work to a
der became a “community” of various functions panel of invited guests and subject-matter experts,
designed to welcome visitors from both sides of i. e., a “jury.” Jury members are expected to bring
the border (Figure 3). The illustration of her pro- their subject-matter expertise to bear on individ-
posal suggests both its building-scale and re- ual projects and to provide the students – individ-
gion-scale implications: a multiplicity of functions ually and collectively – with critique addressing a
both anticipates and responds to the needs of con- range of issues, e. g., by highlighting missed oppor-
stituencies (e. g., children, scholars, tourists), even tunities, or by identifying possible paths for future
as the territory on either side of the border be- development of the work.
comes saturated with dispersed “refuge” stations
for road-weary migrants.
Figure 3. Border-Crossing Station, Ashleigh Grizzell, Integrated Design Studio, Spring 2019
8By contrast, in the border-crossing studio, the dis- of the border, in order to appropriately cater to
cussion was structured to enable simultaneous the needs of refugees.
small-group discussions, in no instance of which
was the student-author present to explain their Future work deriving from hypotheses of this kind
proposal. Thus, subject-matter expert response would necessarily revisit and challenge existing as-
was not conditioned by students’ verbally stat- sumptions (e. g., present in the existing literature),
ed intentions. The small-group meetings were ex- proceeding from a basis newly informed by possi-
plicitly positioned as an opportunity to generate bilities suggested in student proposals.
questions for large-group discussions. Rather than
position the student-authors of proposals as the 3.0. Discussion
authority of signification, the act of interpretation
was left up to others, raising new insights into the The two studios discussed here differed in several
projects. The discussion format enabled students important respects. The incarceration studio was
and guests to work together to infer, extrapolate, constituted around an existing, real-world prob-
and articulate questions. lem upon which a discipline-specific perspective
was brought to bear. Students engaged an actual
This activity minimized the extent to which stu- site, learned from community members vested in
dent arguments were defended with respect to the problem, and applied models for problem-res-
other stakeholders, precisely because individu- olution. Exercises assured that decisions would
al students were not physically present to defend promote proposal development. Speculative solu-
their work or answer questions about it. Although tions emerged as designed projects and as written
proposals could be critiqued on the basis of stake- hypotheses capable of further testing and applica-
holder interest (e. g., failure to comply with gov- tion. By contrast, the border-crossing studio en-
ernmental standards), critique was balanced by gaged students in a speculative process address-
the emergence of post hoc design justifications. ing an imagined project on a remote site. “Outside”
The emergent value of proposals did not derive voices (i. e. invited guests) impacted the process in
from their defensibility but from their latent abil- only a very limited way.
ity to provoke new questions for possible investi-
gation. The following questions are examples of The two studios assumed different positions on
the hypotheses that emerged from the end-of-se- the overlap between research and design activi-
mester discussion: ties. Students in the incarceration studio relied
on design and research activities to explore ideas,
Hypothesis. If the border-crossing station is pro- but their research findings were expressed as argu-
grammed as an attractive destination, settle- ments foundational to the design proposals. Each
ment will intensify on either side of the border, student reframed research findings in the form
and over time, a cross-cultural settlement will of design hypotheses represented as test cases. By
evolve, diminishing the politically divisive ef- contrast, the border-crossing studio assumed a tac-
fect of the international border. tical identity between research and design, propos-
ing that research and design do not differ in terms
Hypothesis. Rather than manifesting as a stand- of actual activities carried out, but rather in the
alone building at a location where a road cross- kinds of questions they respectively prompt (Chris-
es the border (and consequently reinforcing tenson 2012). Hypotheses emerged only at the stu-
differences between “legal” and “illegal” cross- dio’s conclusion: student proposals were not test
ings), the border station should be a physically cases, but rather collections of artifacts capable of
dispersed facility occupying the entire length provoking research questions.
94.0. conclusions Davis, Angela. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? New York:
Seven Stories Press.
In Findeli’s terms, both studios uncovered anthro-
pological issues and delivered proposals; from Dierkhising, Carly B., Susan J. Ko, Briana Woods-Jae-
Dudovskiy’s perspective, both uncovered new is- ger, Ernestine C. Briggs, Robert Lee, and Robert S.
sues and reframed questions. Both studios con- Pynoos. 2013. “Trauma Histories among Justice-in-
formed to Babbie’s idea of yielding new insights volved Youth: findings from the National
without providing definitive answers. Beyond this, Child Traumatic Stress Network,” European
student designs, while not definitive, proposed or Journal for Psychotraumatology, 4:10, Taylor &
suggested possible alternatives to normative solu- Francis website.
tions, wherein lies their value.
Dudovskiy, John. 2018. “Exploratory Research”
The power of the studios as sites for research de- Research Methods website. https://research-
rived from several attributes: the studios enabled method-ology.net/research-methodology/
exploration, redefinition, and understanding research-design/exploratory-research/
through design; the process of design inquiry re-
vealed underlying issues, both possible causes and DuVernay, Ava. 2016. The 13th . Netflix
possible solutions; students with different back-
grounds developed a variety of approaches and Findeli, Alain. 2016. “The Myth of the Design
designs to address the issues; and the approaches Androgene,” in Joost, Gesche, Katharina Bredies,
generated hypotheses susceptible to future testing Michelle Christensen, Floran Conradi, and
and embodiment in built form. Andreas Unteidig (eds), Design as Research:
Positions, Arguments, Perspectives, Basel:
references Birkhäuser.
Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow; Ford, Julian D., John F. Chapman, Josephine
Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, New Hawke, and David Albert. 2007. “Trauma Among
York: The New Press. Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Critical
Issues and New Directions”, National Center for
Babbie, Earl. 2016. The Practice of Social Mental Health and Juvenile Justice website, June.
Research , 14th Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Groat, Linda and David Wang. 2013.
Benko, Jessica. 2015 “The Radical Humaneness of Architectural Research Methods , 2nd Edition.
Norway’s Halden Prison: The Goal of the New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Norwegian Penal System is to get inmates out of
it,” New York Times Magazine , March 26. https:// Jacobson, Kristi. 2019. Solitary: Inside Red
www.ny-times.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the- Onion State Prison . HBO
radical-hu-maneness-of-norways-halden-
prison.html Joost, Gesche, Katharina Bredies, Michelle
Christensen, Floran Conradi, and Andreas
Christenson, Mike. 2012. “Mixing Algorithms Unteidig (eds). 2016. Design as Research:
in Urban Analysis and Transformation,” Positions, Arguments, Perspectives, Basel:
Proceedings of the 2012 EAAE / ARCC Birkhauser.
International Conference on Architectural
Research, 578-581.Nirje, Bengt. 1960. “The Normalization Principle
and its Human Management Implications.” In R.
Kugel & W. Wolfensburger (Eds.) Changing
patterns in residential services for the mentally
retarded . Washington: President’s Committee
on Mental Retardation.
Robinson, Julia W. and J. Stephen Weeks. 1984.
Programming as Design . Minneapolis, MN:
School of Architecture, University of Minnesota.
Robinson, Julia W. 2019 “Preventing Youth
Incarceration: Studio-Based Research,” Future
Praxis: Applied Research As A Bridge Between
Theory And Practice (Toronto, Canada),
Proceedings of the ARCC 2019 Conference,
Toronto.
Van Buren, Deanna. 2019 “We Must Plan for a
Decarceration Nation,” Architect Magazine ,
May. https://www.architectmagazine.com/
practice/deanna-van-buren-we-must-plan-for-
a-decarceration-nation_o
Zeisel, John. 1986/2006. Inquiry by Desig n,
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11You can also read
