Tag Archives: ARP

ARP 04:  Collective Site Visit and ‘Act of Repair’ (Activities Part 1)

Leave a Reply

Holistic Site Research Cycle

As outlined in my post ‘ARP 02: Reflections on Inclusive Practices Intervention and Ethical Action Plan’, I’m looking at the impact of collective site research within a series of activities, with a collective drawing workshop as the series’ culmination. In this post, I am briefly introducing two groundwork laying activities:

  1. Collective site visit
  2. Hands on design assignment ‘Act Of Repair’

Collective Site Visit

The site visit on Tuesday, October 7th was the first time I met the student cohort. The site—the place that we had chosen for the students to design their architecture projects for—is located in the Lee Valley in Enfield in North London. The students will work on their design projects for the entire year, and will grow to know the site via a range of methods. In the first instance, it was important that they simply orientate themselves, start to understand the site’s complexities, and discuss the varied perspectives available to them through their diverse studio group. We have been using the method of collective site visits for years, but this time, we also introduced the ethnographic research method of taking field notes (Tjora, 2006). We hoped that having a way to first put down personal considerations of the site will help students avoid wanting to please the other or others in the group at the collective drawing WS (Arnold, Norton, 2021).

The site visit took place on the afternoon of Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. We took an hour long walk North along the Lee Valley to reach the site for the design projects.
To engage the students to think about the place deliberately via the method of taking field notes, we handed out aerial views of the area we walked through and asked them to note down 10 spatial conditions they notice on their walk.
The preparatory email we sent to the group to inform them of the plans and to give a heads up about the walking distances and conditions.

‘Act of Repair’

We also introduced a week-long design task for students to complete in pairs or trios. We called it ‘Act of Repair’, borrowing the concept of the ‘Repair Society’ from the editors of the Arch+ magazine issue ‘The Great Repair’ (ARCH+, 2023). The aim was to steer students away from the individualistically oriented and desktop-based site research methods that are conventional in architecture practice, and to ask them to reflect on the site through physical matter—to research with things (Woodward, 2022).

Each students was asked to pick up some matter—organic, inorganic—from the site. We then arranged a ‘marketplace’ for everyone to pair up their matter with someone else’s.

Arranging the marketplace. Tutor Roland keeping away on the right.
Everyone laid their found matter down on the backs of their site maps.
Example of a pairing where two students had each found more than one object.

Only then, we introduced the brief—to combine and “repair” their found matter into something new. In the following week back in the studio, we arranged a small exhibition where all student pairs discussed their objects and observations about the site these helped them to make.

The brief for the design task that we handed out to the students.
Example of a pairing. Two students chose to pair up their matter, as one had chosen organic and the other one inorganic matter.
Working together, they developed a device—apparently useless but beautifully crafted. When introducing it, they told the story of a site which is heavily industrialised but simultaneously rich in biodiversity.

Conclusion

The collective site visit is a tried and tested method for creating some initial camaraderie in the group. The long walk is fundamental for it. Introducing an autoethnographic note-taking activity to it worked well, as everyone had to actively engage with their initial opinions and reflections. 

The ‘Act of Repair’ task proved to be a good way to excite the students by asking them to make something that can be interpreted in many ways. Having these finished objects out on tables worked well for creating a wow-factor, which in turn helped everyone engage with everyone else’s verbal reflections too. The artefacts also became the first data I collected, and that I informally started to interpret together with the students.

An Act of Repair by a group of three students.

Bibliography:

[1] Arnold, L. & Norton, L., 2021. Problematising pedagogical action research in formal teaching courses and academic development: a collaborative autoethnography. Educational Action Research, 29(2), pp. 328-345. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1746373

[2]Tjora, A.H. (2006). Writing Small Discoveries: An Exploration of Fresh Observers’ Observations. London: Sage Publications. 

[3] ARCH+ (eds.) (2023). The Great Repair: A Catalog of Practices. Bilingual (German/English) edition. Stuttgart/Berlin: Spector Books.[4] Woodward, S. (2020). Material Methods: Researching and Thinking with Things. London: Sage Publications.

ARP 03: Timeline and Assignments Plan

Leave a Reply

Timeline and scope for my Action Research Project

My teaching in the design studio will be focused on site research between w/c Oct 6–w/c Oct 27. This timeframe includes a site visit, a case study visit, a collaborative drawing workshop, three assignments (carried out individually or in pairs by the students) and tutorials. I am planning to evaluate and review the results in October and in November.

Planned activities and data

I will be considering the intervention (a collective drawing workshop) as part of a longer cycle of site research related teaching activities. I will implement changes in the following teaching contexts:

  • Collective site visit and assignment in pairs, Tue Oct 7th;
  • Collective Drawing Workshop, Tue Oct 14th;
  • Tutorials on individual site drawings, Tue Oct 21st and Fri Oct 24th;

I will evaluate the actions using three methods:

  • informal discussions with co-tutor Roland Reemaa (method: collective autoethnography);
  • analysis of artefacts made by students in response to assignments (method: document/object analysis);
  • interviewing a focus group of students with the work they’ve produced (method: interview, object elicitation);

Personal circumstances 

In the period of carrying out this research, I am in the third trimester of my pregnancy. Although I am in good health and used to long walks, site visits are currently more challenging for me. I need to plan in seated breaks, bring water and snacks, and scope out nearest toilets. During the site visits, I will also keep my emergency contact and partner on call, in case I need assistance. Teaching in college is less challenging, however, I will need to count in extra breaks. I have also notified my line managers about my circumstances, and I can rely on their support.

I scoped out the project in my sketchbook in October. I planned out periods for actions and data gathering as well as analysis. Due to other work responsibilities I needed to complete before going on parental leave, I’ve needed to make amendments to what I initially planned to do.

ARP Research question

Leave a Reply

I’ve chosen to focus my Action Research Project on teaching collaborative methods to architecture students. My research question is:

How to encourage collaborative practices in a design studio with a diverse group of students within an individualistically oriented course structure and discipline?

I am further elaborating on the context of my teaching and this research question in my first blog post for the ARP unit ‘ARP 01: Collaborative Practices as Foundation for Social Justice in Architectural Design Education’.

Collaborative drawing workshop held on Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at my design studio at CSM BA Architecture.

ARP 01: Collaborative Practices as Foundation for Social Justice in Architectural Design Education

Leave a Reply

Repairing the architectural curriculum

Architecture is predominantly seen as an individualistic practice and not a form of inclusive and caring labour. As the architectural theorist Elke Krasny frames it, 

“Despite this fundamental function of architecture to provide protection for humans from sun, wind, snow or rain, and to give the support necessary for maintaining the vital functions of everyday living, the idea of the architect is linked to autonomy and independent genius rather than connectedness, dependency, social reproduction and care giving.” (Krasny, 2019)

She continues, 

“[The reasons] have to do with the classed, sexualized and racialized division of power and labor that historically excluded spatial practices performed by black, indigenous people, people of color, women or workers from the idea of Architecture with a capital A as it was discursively shaped by Western thought.” (Krasny, 2019) 

To ensure a more equitable future for architecture—one that includes a range of spatial practitioners and recognises a range of spatial practices that are vital for repairing the damage the profession is accountable for in relation to social as well as climate justice—, we need to rethink the curriculum of architecture, including the methods and ways of doing we teach to aspiring architects.

Architects Registration Board analysed the representation of different groups (gender, ethnicity, religious, geographical location) of the architects’ profession in 2022. As I’ve highlighted, the results show a lack of diversity. Expanding the ways architects practice and what type of practice is considered architecture, could be one way of improving this. (ARB 2023)

ARP Focus and Research Question

In this context, I’ve chosen to specifically focus my Action Research Project on teaching collaborative methods to architecture students. My research question is:

How to encourage collaborative practices in a design studio with a diverse group of students within an individualistically oriented course structure and discipline?

I will focus my action research project on the first phase of teaching within the architectural design studio at the Central Saint Martins BA Architecture course. It is where we explore one of the first stages of any architecture project—site research. Site research methods typical to the discipline of architecture aim to be ‘objective’ and ‘neutral’ (e.g. desktop-based mappings and data collection, reliance on spatial abstractions (CAD drawings, 3D models)). Their aim is to remove the professional from their subjectivity. However, this claim for objectivity fails to acknowledge that these methods were developed in colonial contexts from a Western bias. They also fail to recognise on-ground human experiences and thus lay foundation for exclusivity and injustice in architectural projects.

My intention is to challenge these methods in my teaching practice and encourage students to recognise their personal experiences, share them with their peers, and examine the site collectively through autoethnographic methods. My thesis is that understanding a site from a range of vantage points is a start for making architectural practice socially more just and architectural practitioner more empathetic. The project builds on my intervention for the Inclusive Practices module and sets out to develop it as a comprehensive teaching approach.

Several mostly public realm focussed London architecture practices have been pioneering methods of collaborative site research, e.g. East, MUF, Erect. East architects, landscape, urban design co-organised and held a community workshop at the Arden Estate Hall to discuss their WIP for the masterplan project ‘Connecting Hoxton’. (East, 2025)

Context of teaching practice

As part of this project, I will be working with a group of 22 second- and third-year architecture students, who are developing an individual architectural design project across one academic year. I will focus on the first phase of the architectural design studio—site research—with the aim to introduce (1) collaborative research practices, (2) encourage critical friendships between the students, and (3) develop empathy within the diverse (ethnically, neurologically, socially and culturally) group. I believe the three notions are fundamental to an inclusive learning environment.

[500 words]

Bibliography:

[1] Krasny, E. (2019). ‘Architecture and Care’, in Fitz, A. & Krasny, E. (eds) Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Vienna & Cambridge MA: Architekturzentrum Wien & MIT Press, pp. 33‑43.

[2] Architects Registration Board (ARB) (2023). Architects Today: analysis of the architects’ profession in 2022. ARB. Available at: https://arb.org.uk/architects-today/ (Accessed: 15 November 2025).

[3] East (2025). ‘[Community workshop at the Arden Estate Hall]’ [Instagram], 16 July. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/DMLWGwmMoA4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== (Accessed: 15 November 2025).