The document discusses the need to transform architectural education towards more socially responsive and ethical practice. It argues that historical models of architectural education focused too heavily on intuition and individual creativity, detaching architecture from social context. To better address complex real-world issues, architectural education must achieve an "epistemological balance" between intuitive and rational thinking. It must also engage more with interdisciplinary collaboration and real-world design problems situated in complex social contexts. The document proposes a model for an interdisciplinary collaborative studio that bridges education, practice, and society to develop more contextually-relevant solutions.

1. THE TRANSFORMATION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION TOWARDS
ESTABLISHING ARCHITECTURE AS RESPONSIVE, RELEVANT AND ETHICAL
SOCIAL PRACTICE: A MODEL FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION
AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION.
Abstract
The role of architectural education and ethical social practice within the context of the
developing world has drawn much interest in recent times. The developing world is
characterised by the complex coexistence of multiple layers of diverse existential contexts.
Multiculturalism, different scales of economic activity and ecological diversity present many
challenges, as well as unique opportunities for the built environment professions, which in turn
requires a critical review of professional education and practice. This however, challenges the
colonially inherited historical modes of practice in the developing world, which have had to
transform in order to respond to contextual realities. In this regard, contemporary
architectural practice, and education, in the developing world has much to offer the developed
world. Historical practice, curricula and pedagogic approaches, however, inhibit responsive
architectural practice and relevance within this context. The paper argues that, in order for
architectural practice to become responsive, relevant and ethical social practice, the inherited
historic curricula and pedagogic approaches defining architectural education have to be
fundamentally transformed. Architectural education and practice has to step out of their
disciplinary silos and start to engage with the broader context; this in turn requires a
fundamental shift in epistemological balance. In this regard, the studio, as the principle
learning space in architectural education, would be critically reviewed in order to transform
into an interdisciplinary collaborative and inclusive environment. The paper will conclude by
developing a conceptual model for an interdisciplinary, collaborative studio in order to bridge
the gaps between education, practice and society in order to develop relevant and responsive
solutions to complex built environment problems. The key theoretical concepts of
Epistemological Balance, Hybridity, Interdisciplinary Engagement and Collaborative
Learning Spaces define the theoretical framework for this paper.
Keywords: Architectural education, transformation, epistemological balance, collaboration,
interdisciplinarity.

2. Introduction
The value of architecture in contemporary society has been the concern of the profession for
some time and this concern is becoming increasingly critical. Architecture, as an intrinsically
progressive discipline is ironically over-reliant on historic curricula, historic pedagogies and
historic practices that are becoming increasingly questioned as to their relevance to a rapidly
changing global environment. Global climate change, the rapid change in global economies,
and social change has implicitly questioned the relevance and value of architectural creation
and product. The multi-faceted complexities of the developing world require architectural
engagement with many issues that were historically foreign to the architectural curriculum,
pedagogies and practice. As a result, an increasing gap between architectural education,
practice and society has developed and this has undermined ethical social practice. Architecture
seems to have lost its place in society.
The historical position of architectural practice in society
Architecture during the pre-17th
century period, had high cultural and utilitarian value as it was
strongly connected to craft and building, in the existential context. So how did architecture lose
this position of value as a cultural and utilitarian asset? The answer to this question requires an
analysis of the historical transformation of architectural practice and education dating pre-17th
century to the present day. Up until the early 17 century, architecture was closely related to the
act of making and craftsmanship, hence the utilitarian and cultural value of such architecture.
The ecological environment strongly determined form, technology and materials while social
/cultural values reflected in the architectural programmatic composition and the architectural
expression of building and open space. During this period, architecture was in the custody of
the guilds of master craftsmen and master builders and therefore strongly involved with the act
of making and the art of craftsmanship. Figure 1 illustrates the position of architecture, which
had been located in an existential /social paradigm.
Figure 1: The status of Architecture during the pre-17th
century (Author, 2014)

3. Within this paradigm, architecture emerged or “became” as a result of responsive engagement
with the existential context; this context being defined by the broad layers of ecology, economy
and society /culture. As a result, architecture enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the
existential context, and naturally became a cultural manifestation through the act of making
within the socio /cultural constructs of particular existential contexts. The paradigm site for
learning was the existential context and site or place became the principal architectural learning
space.
During the early 17th
century, however, architecture shifted from this existential / social
paradigm, to an artistic paradigm defined by the intuitive and cognitive faculties of the
individual architect. Figure 2 illustrates the position of architecture, during the early 17th
century, which moved to the domains of academia and the profession. Cret (1941) attributes
this epistemological shift to the Renaissance, where the ideals of the courts and the aristocracy
sought to professionalise architecture. Architecture henceforth separated from the guilds and
moved into the domain of the academies and the profession. The resultant epistemic shift
located architecture within the artistic paradigm and the self-indulgent intentions of the
professional architect, henceforth, defined architectural creation.
Figure 2: The status of Architecture during the early 17th
century (Author, 2014)
This self-indulgent, introverted process was detached from the realities of context and little or
no concern was given to ecology, economy and society /culture. Architecture no longer
concerned itself with the act of making within the socio /cultural constructs of particular
existential contexts, and was rather abstract and object focused. During this period the
paradigm site for learning became the design studio, an isolated, intuitive, creative space.
Although architectural training / education continued to develop during the early 18th
century
in the form of the articled pupillage system in Britain it was the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, which
was established in France during the mid18th
century, that entrenched the studio (atelier)
pedagogy in architectural education (Howarth, 1959). The epistemology of this pedagogic
system, however, focussed heavily on the intuitive / introvert processes of creation, within an
artistic paradigm that detached itself from the acts of building and craft, and the making of
architecture in existential place largely became less relevant than the creation of beautiful and

4. luring objects in space. This approach fostered self-indulgence and self-expression of the
architect, which is evident in the preferential trends of architectural student projects especially
in the mid to late 1990s.
Rybcznski (cited in Stamps III, 1994, p. 105) outlines the trends in architectural education from
the early 1960s to the mid-1990s. During the early 1960s student projects engaged with social
issues as evident in the large-scale housing projects; the late sixties focussed on low-income
housing, community centres and residential infill projects, which reflected a keen interest in
social reformation. The 1970s saw the return to architectural history, as evident in large formal
buildings and renderings. Rybcznski confirms that in the1990s, however, projects tended
towards unusual buildings with little functional requirement and maximum emotive potential,
in which designers were focused on self-expression and individuality.This approach to
architectural design was rather overwhelmingly object focussed and the lure of the product
outweighed any concern of the process of contextually responsive architectural design.
Although architectural design was viewed as product during the 1990s, a product-based
approach in the architectural design process emerged much earlier, during the 1960s design
methodology movement.
Salama (2005) refers to the product-based approach of the 1960s design methodology
movement, also known as the analysis-synthesis paradigm. The sequential nature of this
approach undermined the potential of architectural design as an integrated process. Within this
system, students found it difficult to translate /synthesise their early analytical processes into
their design solutions. They generally assumed that a creative leap would translate the
programme into an optimal design which would then signify the end of the process. The
assumption of architectural genius hence became implicitly embedded in the method of design
of architectural students especially around the 1990s.The relevance of such genius has become
increasingly criticised as architecture has become less relevant and meaningful beyond its
obvious objective visual lure and contextual responsiveness is almost entirely negated.
Epistemological balance towards responsive architectural practice
The need for responsive architecture, especially in the complex contexts of the developing
world, has become urgent in order to engage with the social, economic and environmental
realities of such contexts. Consequently, artistic inspiration, individual artistic genius and the
coincidental creative spark that manifests as architectural product can no longer be sustained.
Tom Wiscombe affirms this in his statement: “The idea that innovation, whether scientific,
technological, or architectural, is a by-product of artistic chance or a result of singular genius
can no longer be sustained in the 21st
century...” (Wiscombe, 2009, p. 59).The dynamic and
rapid changes in ecology, economies and social structures raise critical questions about the role
of architecture with particular reference to people, place and time.
Amos Rapoport1994 (cited in Salama, 2008, p. 103) states that architecture needs to develop a
quantifiable body of knowledge based on science and research, which implies a dramatic
departure from the artistic paradigm. This requires a fundamental shift in epistemology from a
predominantly intuitive / introverted artistic paradigm to an epistemological balance defined

5. by due regard for the rational / extrovert epistemology that is contextually responsive. This
raises the fundamental question of ethical social (architectural) practice: How can architectural
creation reconnect with context, defined by people, place and time?
This paper argues that the pedagogic approach of architectural education has to fundamentally
transform in order to inculcate ethical social practice in graduate architectural practitioners. In
this regard it is posited that epistemological balance needs to be established in architectural
education and the nature of its principal learning space, the design studio, needs to transform.
Jung (1976) in Psychological Types explained the four fundamental psychic functions of
consciousness, namely, intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking. These four psychic functions
are reinterpreted in order to determine the constituents of epistemological balance which is
posited as vital for the ethical social practice of architecture. Stamps III (1994) refers to Jung
in order to explain the relevance of psychological types to architectural education. He takes a
critical position of the predominant mode of architectural education which, he states,
emphasises feelings and imagination and, as such, socialises students within an artistic
paradigm. Stamps strongly advocates that current societal conditions demand skills other than
those that exist within the artistic paradigm, particularly thinking, sensing and extroversion.
Stamps posits that epistemological balance is vital to architectural education, as the
development of a range of diverse other skills need to be developed, beside the artistic, in order
to respond to the pressing demand for contextually responsive and relevant architecture.
Epistemological balance is achieved by a continual interaction between the right brain
(intuitive) and the left brain (intellectual), and the introvert (intuitive/creative) relative to the
extrovert (contextually rooted), in order to achieve the balance necessary for responsive and
relevant architecture (Stamps III, 1994). Furthermore, and vitally important, is that according
to the Jungian system, people can function within the psychological types both as individuals
and in groups. Stamps posits that designers need to engage each of the Jungian psychological
factors in or to function effectively in the information-rich, multicultural world.
Salama (2008, p. 100) postulates that architecture is created in a space of tension between
reason, emotion and intuition, and that building is an act that has to be rooted in the humane
tradition. This seems to be, implicitly, referring to the nature of architecture during the pre-17th
century. However the inference here is towards a pedagogical approach to architecture that
requires the application of multiple intelligences in a form of epistemological balance. He
further affirms that architecture has historically been viewed as art and emphasis was on the
acquisition of skills at the expense of knowledge. Salama argues that knowledge should be
integrated in order to foster the development of responsive knowledge that can be meaningfully
applied to the built environment. In order to achieve this, the architectural mind cannot merely
rely on the intuitive right brain, and therefore the rational and analytical left brain functions
become vital to responsive architecture. Salama posits that architectural education requires the
full activation of both sides of the brain, which he explains in his “Split Brain Theory” (Figure
3).

6. Figure 3: Diagrammatic representation of Split-Brain theory (Salama, 2008, p. 122)
Figure 3 illustrates the cognitive functioning of the left and the right sides of the brain. The left
side functions within the scientific paradigm, characterised by a sequential and logical / rational
method of processing information, where a series of parts are sequentially interpreted in order
to create understanding. Knowledge production within this paradigm is based on inferential
logic through the processes of thinking, perception and extroversion. The right side of the brain,
on the other hand, functions within the artistic paradigm, characterised by an intuitive /
imaginative way of processing information, where images and patterns are simultaneously
interpreted in a cyclic and holistic way in order to create understanding. Knowledge production
is based on intuitive understanding through feeling, intuition and introversion. According to
Salama (2008) architecture is created in the field between the intuitive and the rational and
therefore there has to be a balance between the left and right brain functions in the process of
architectural design.
Architectural design problems and contextual responsiveness
Traditionally, design studio projects were defined by abstract problems situated in abstract
contexts, focussing heavily on the development of intuitive abilities in students. Problem based
learning (PBL) has been a feature of architecture since the formalisation of architectural
education. Indeed, PBL was a method promulgated by Beaux-Arts education however,
problems were theoretical and abstract / hypothetical in nature and generally situated within
the intuitive / artistic paradigm. Such problems were generally a-contextual.
Salama states that many instructors regard architecture as an art of making rather than an act
of making, hence creativity is limited to intuition and talent. Much emphasis is placed on the

7. design problem rather than conceptual solutions and the design product is valued much more
than the exploration of responsive methods and processes of design. This dominant right brain
approach to architectural projects is rather inappropriate in dealing with the complexities and
challenges of real life contexts. Hence, the nature of the architectural studio design problem
becomes crucial to the success of the design studio. Salama (2008) comments on the real versus
the hypothetical design problem and recommends that design problems be situated in real life
contexts in order to engage with many contextual variables such as the relationship between
culture and the built environment. In Howarth (1966) at the UIA Conference in 1965 the plight
of the developing world was highlighted. It was emphasised that the “exhibitionist” nature of
Western architecture had no place in the developing world, which had to deal with the socio-
economic and environmental complexities of such context. The inadequacy of historic trends
that were colonially inherited by the developing world became evident.
The architectural profession in the developing world, however, has evolved over time from its
colonial heritage and the concerns for regional identity and response to multi-layered and multi-
cultured contexts has started to manifest. In this regard, the architectural profession, in the
developing world today, has much to offer the developed world. Architectural practice,
especially in the public sector, requires engagement with complex multi-layered and multi-
cultural contexts. This requires that the architect engages with many issues, other than the art
of architecture, such as socio-economic and socio-political realities, and environmental
challenges that plague and define the developing world. The indeterminate and dynamic nature
of contexts in the developing world places further challenges on the expertise of the architect.
The resultant process of constant engagement with existential realities fosters resourcefulness
and resilience in built environment professionals, as the architect is challenged to constantly
critically rethink and redefine his /her processes and methods of design. In this context, there
is no place for the “starchitect”. Much of the developing world consist of emerging economies
that are struggling to redefine their post-colonial identities. This is certainly the case in South
Africa as a relatively new democracy, which brings into question the value of architectural
heritage which, in the urban context, is almost entirely based on colonial inheritance. Architects
are constantly challenged to create new architecture albeit against the backdrop of a colonial
architectural heritage, which requires complex skills that historical models of architectural
education do not provide. Architectural education, in the developing world, is however still
largely based on colonial inheritance and both the theoretical content of curricula and the
pedagogic approaches of the design studio do not adequately prepare young practitioners for
the complexities of the real world context. In order to inculcate a culture of responsive
architecture, design problems have to engage with contextual realities fairly early in the
curriculum and design pedagogy requires a critical departure from the historically inherited
Beaux-Arts atelier model. The complexities of multi-layered contexts requires expertise
beyond that of the individual architect and the adoption of multiple intelligences that are
outside the general scope and training of the architect, becomes vital to design. The
incorporation of multiple disciplines in the design studio, working in collaboration, is vital to
the development of responsive architectural solutions.

8. Interdisciplinary collaboration
Hmelo-Silver (2004) suggests that design problems be resolved in collaborative groups. These
collaborative groups, however cannot merely consist of students of architecture as the
complexities of real problems requires the engagement of multiple intelligences, as mentioned
above. Wiscome further states: “In order to move into this space of innovation, architects will
have to accept the value of multiplicity and dynamic feedback over the retrograde nature of
authority. They will have to accept that architecture might not be about essences and theoretical
positions, but rather about exchanges of techniques, expertise and materialities in multiple
industries. They will have to accept that architecture is no longer a heroic centre, but one micro-
intelligence among many. They will have to let go and begin to love the swarm” (Wiscombe,
2009, p. 59).
This approach requires that the student of architecture becomes socially engaged both with the
research context as well as with the relevant allied disciplines and societal stakeholders. Salama
(2008, p. 110) states that “We are living in a complex world, a world in which no one discipline
will have the upper hand in solving environmental and societal problems as they relate to
architecture and the creation of liveable environments”. The complexities referred to here by
Salama, implies that the architect cannot take a position of a heroic genius, but rather a humble
position which is rooted in the concerns and aspirations of people in place at a particular time.
In this way, design solutions emerge through the rigorous negotiation between multiple
intelligences, defined by multiple disciplines, as responsive to the complexities of real life
contexts. Transdisciplinary knowledge hence results, through collaborative inter-subjective
engagement between different disciplines (Salama, 2008, p. 112).
The above discussion, brings into question the nature of the design studio, as the principal
learning space for architectural design education, which cannot continue to reserve exclusive
access to the architectural discipline. The traditional Beaux-Arts atelier model, which is still
today, the predominant mode of the design studio, encourages an introverted, intuitive
approach to architectural design based on abstract problems that are disconnected from the
realities of the complexities of the multiple layers of context. The ultimate outcome of the
Beaux-Arts atelier is architectural practice that is disconnected from society. Reference is made
to the earlier discussion on the disconnection between architecture and the act of building as
evident since the early to mid-17th
century. The withdrawal of architecture from the act of
making and building, during the pre-17th
century, into the academic paradigm focussed on the
art of making has to be critically analysed in order to reposition architecture as a social and
cultural asset. The resultant gap between theory and practice, due to an epistemic shift towards
an intuitive /introverted approach to architecture, severely compromises contextually
responsive architecture (Figure 4).

9. Figure 4: The gap between theory and practice (Author, 2014)
This gap between theory and practice ultimately results in a disconnection from the social
paradigm as architectural theory develops in a disciplinary silo, largely focussing on the work
of individual architects, and their theoretical and philosophical positions. The contextual
realities facing contemporary societies in both the developed and developing worlds, however
requires that architecture disembark from its position as an elite luxury and start to establish
itself as a valuable social asset. Hence the critical question of ethical social practice re-emerges.
Architectural practice is challenged to respond to contextual realities and cannot continue to
disregard people, place and time. How then can architectural pedagogy bridge the gap between
theory, practice and society in order to better respond to people, place and time?
This paper posits that the studio transforms in order to engage multiple disciplines towards
providing relevant architectural solutions that respond to the needs and aspirations of people,
with due regard to place and time, and thereby inculcate a culture of ethical social practice. It
may be contested that architectural education has always been multi-disciplinary. However,
while the consideration of modules from multiple disciplines has been a defining feature of the
modern architectural curriculum for some time, this paper argues that the studio be transformed
into an interdisciplinary learning space in order to draw on multiple intelligences and
experiences towards producing contextually responsive architectural solutions. In this regard,
the studio, as the principal learning space in architectural education, would be critically
reviewed in order to transform into an interdisciplinary collaborative and inclusive
environment.
It is firstly necessary to outline the nature of architectural education and learning. Figure 5
illustrates the current relationship between theory, practice and society. In this model, there is
a linear transmission between theory / academia, practice and society which illustrates a non-
integrated approach to architectural learning that has been most prevalent since the early 17th
century.

10. Figure 5: The linear transmission model between theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)
It is clearly evident that there is a gap between theory and practice, but also between practice
and society. The linear transmission model that conveniently separates these domains in a
mechanistic sequence is largely devoid of any synergy and is defined by disconnection. Society
happens to bear the consequences of architectural creation that results from disconnected silos;
disconnected from the existential context in which society exists.
The pre-17th
century paradigm (Figure 1) however illustrated a holistic model based on
systemic synergies between the act of architectural creation and the existential context which
is diagrammatically represented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: The cyclic / systemic model of theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)
Figure 6 illustrates that theory and practice are intrinsically situated in context (place), which
defines, and is defined by society (people) in an adaptable and dynamic state of continuous
redefinition, hence the relevance to time. This inter-relationship is not mechanistic or linear but
rather cyclic, systemic and synergistic. In this model architectural theory and practice is rooted
/ situated in the existential context and while theory forms the conceptual framework for
practice, both theory and practice in turn are defined and developed by the existential context.
A dynamic and continuous dialogue therefore exists between theory, practice and society
situated within the existential context.
Context or place is further defined by a multitude of layers, broadly outlined as three inter-
dependent layers namely, the social, the economic and the ecological (Figure 7). Each of these
domains may further be subdivided into sub-domains, for example culture is a sub-layer of the
social layer.

11. Figure 7: The place of architecture, between theory, practice and society (Author, 2014)
While Figure 7 broadly represents a conceptual diagramme of the place of architecture in
context, it starts to reveal a multitude of possible inter-relationships and multiple disciplines.
The space in-between the domains illustrated within this model, reveals the complex nature of
architectural practice, which is driven by multiple informants in a dynamic state of flux,
requiring multiple intelligences. With reference to the concept of epistemological balance, it is
clearly evident that the architectural practitioner requires much more than artistic talent in order
to respond to the real challenges of these multi-layered contexts. This requires a fundamentally
rational approach, however with the added layer of creativity, in a cyclical or reflective way,
in order to develop innovative solutions to the built environment problems. The multitude of
influences and conditions that define the broad context within which the built environment
exists, requires the application of multiple intelligences that are beyond the traditional scope
and training of the architect.
It is further argued that the introduction of interdisciplinary modules to the architectural
curriculum is insufficient in addressing the requirement for multiple intelligences.
Furthermore, the architectural curriculum cannot be redefined by cross disciplinary modules to
such an extent that the core focus of architectural design education gets compromised;
architectural curricula are generally multi-disciplinary in any case. The fundamental problem
is that interdisciplinary curriculum does not necessarily translate into interdisciplinary practice.
The inculcation of ethical social practice, as the term implies, requires that knowledge be
applied in interdisciplinary practice towards the good of society. So how, then, would
interdisciplinary practice be fostered in architectural education?
This paper posits that interdisciplinarity is a spatial concept and therefore the learning
environment / learning space becomes the paradigm site for interdisciplinary practice. Within
this paradigm, the knowledge and skill of the architect becomes one amongst many
intelligences engaged in the development of responsive built environment solutions through
collaboration. The current general Beaux-Arts form of the design studio, therefore, requires
reconceptualization in order to become an interdisciplinary space for the collaborative
engagement of the various multiple intelligences, across many disciplines. What then
constitutes an interdisciplinary studio? Figure 8 illustrates a conceptual model for an
interdisciplinary learning environment.

12. Figure 8: Interdisciplinary learning environment, between theory, practice and society
(Author, 2014)
At the centre of this model is the hatched area circled by a dotted line; this is where the
interdisciplinary studio space exists, as an in-between space. It is this interdisciplinary studio,
as a learning space that bridges the gaps between theory and practice. This space, however,
exists within the broader societal context defined by the social, ecological and economic layers
of context. The implication of this position is that the studio design problem and the pedagogic
approach be situated in the real life context. The studio, hence becomes the paradigm site for
problem-based learning.
A conceptual model for an interdisciplinary studio
Figure 9 illustrates a conceptual model for an interdisciplinary studio which draws in
representatives of society in addition to the other informants of the design solution. Central and
vital to the interdisciplinary studio is a design problem that is situated in the real life context.
Figure 9: Conceptual model of the Interdisciplinary Studio (Author, 2014)

13. Jean Piaget (cited in Savery & Duffy, 1995) refers to the term “puzzlement” which he deems
necessary to stimulate learning, and which is derived from the individual’s interaction with the
social environment; this is fundamental to Problem Based Learning (PBL). Dewey (cited in
Savery & Duffy, 1995) refers to this inherent stimulus to learn, as the “problematic”. Within
this paradigm the teacher assumes the role of facilitator or mentor and challenges students’
thinking in order to arrive at responsive and relevant solutions. The learning process is based
on experiential interaction with the existential context and is cyclical or systemic rather than
sequential. This cyclical process requires the synthesis of theory and analysis of context
through abstract mapping but more importantly, experiential perception. Reference to the
existential context in the design development process is an ongoing part of the process, which
is also cyclical. Hence, design solutions are tested against contextual realities through reflection
and reflective practice. Here, the role of the teacher is to stimulate reflective thinking and
learners reflect on strategies and processes of learning in addition to learning content, necessary
for the resolution of design problems (Schon et al cited in Savery and Duffy, 1995).
PBL, within an interdisciplinary paradigm, requires that various intelligences and proposals are
synthesised in order to create meaning. This fosters symbiotic interaction and the result is that
design solutions are derived through collaborative synthesis where meaning is drawn out of
hybrid conditions defined by functional and cultural layering. Hybridity is a key concept of
post-colonial theory, which is regarded as a cultural phenomenon that, according to Homi
Bhabha (cited in Menin, 2003) opens up a space for translation – a place of hybridity. Hulme
et al (2009) refer to Bhabha’s third space theory, and hybridity as a theoretical basis in order
to explain how professional cultural knowledge can be explored and incorporated in responsive
solutions. This, according to Bhabha is vital in developing trans-professional knowledge in an
attempt to make connections between dislocated experiences and practices, within the
interdisciplinary learning space. This approach is intrinsically participatory and underlines the
core nature of interdisciplinarity. The nature of complex problems that emerge from real life
context inevitably require understanding of regional culture. In the context of the developing
world, there are few built forms that express regional cultural heritage; the translation and
transmission of cultural heritage is mostly facilitated through oral history. How then does an
interdisciplinary team of educated disciplinary experts, who have traditionally relied on written
and built forms for cultural interpretation, engage with the intrinsic regional culture of place?
It is postulated that the cultural value of architecture has to be a narrative that is understood by
the greater community of users of architecture rather than just the architect or the architectural
fraternity hence everybody, as users of the built environment, should be able to interpret the
general cultural narrative of architecture. This brings to the fore the question of cultural
literacy. It is argued here that cultural literacy is dialogical. While architects expect their
creations to be of meaning to society on one hand, on the other hand, architects have to engage
with the culture of place which their designs should respond to. Only then would the built form
express the cultural narrative of place while incorporating the advances of the technologies and
means of production of the time. The collaboration of various disciplines naturally aids cultural
interpretation as it draws on the various life experiences, however, it is strongly argued that
cultural significance and meaning requires a grounded, bottom up approach. This requires the
abandonment of expert cultures and the adoption of a humble approach to architectural design.

14. “To place architecture beyond expert culture into the practice of place-making is an attempt to
make the profession and discipline a more relevant, responsible, complex and contradictory
practice...between modern and postmodern theories and knowledge and social / cultural
practices...” (Schneekloth & Shibley, 2000, p. 130) This complex mode of place-making
requires that, apart from the professional team engaging on the ground with regional societies,
representatives of society become key participants in the process of architectural design as
early as the conceptual design stage. In this way, not only does the resultant architecture reflect
the aspirations of society, but society in turn finds its own expression of identity in the
architecture. In this way, architecture repositions and roots itself in place, and thereby starts to
become meaningful and legible to regional cultures.
Conclusion
The above discussion leads to the conclusion that ethical social (architectural) practice may
only be achieved by the transformation of architectural pedagogy and practice in order to
become contextually responsive and hence, reflect the needs and aspirations of society. This
requires an epistemologically balanced mode of engagement with contextual realities, and
collaborative engagement in a bottom-up approach which includes representatives of society
in addition to an interdisciplinary design / project team. The architectural studio as the
paradigm site for this engagement became the focus of the area of transformation in
architectural education. The suggested model of an interdisciplinary design studio is inclusive
of all stakeholders of the built environment; it is an adaptable space, dynamically responding
to the aspirations of people and the changes in time, thereby becoming intrinsically rooted in
the existential context. The studio hence becomes the key space for the inculcation of ethical
social practice in architecture.

15. LIST OF REFERENCES
Cret, P.P., 1941. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and Architectural Education. The Journal of the
American Society of Architectural Historians. 1(2): 3-15.
Jung, C.G., 1976. Psychological Types. Bollingen, Princeton, New Jersey.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2004. Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn.
Educational Psychology Review. 30(4): 235-266.
Howarth, T., 1959. Background to Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural
Education. 14(2): 25-30.
Howarth, T., 1966. Architectural Education: UIA in Paris. Journal of Architectural Education
(1947-1974). 20(3/4): 42-44.
Hulme. R, Cracknell. D, Owens. A., 2009. Learning in third spaces: developing trans-
professional understanding through practitioner enquiry. Educational Action Research. 17(4):
537-550.
Menin, S., 2003. Constructing Place: Mind and Matter. Rouledge: London
Salama, A., 2005. A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE
Transactions. 2(2): 16-31.
Salama, A.M., 2008. A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education,
International Journal of Architectural Research. 2(1): 100-128.
Savery. J.R., Duffy .T.M., 1995. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and its
Constructivist Framework. Educational Technology. 35: 31-38.
Schneekloth . LH, Shibley. RG., 2000. Implacing Architecture into the Practice of
Placemaking. Journal of Architectural Education. 53(3): 130-140.
Stamps III, A.E., 1994. Jungian Epistemological Balance: A Framework for Conceptualising
Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education. 48(2):105-112.
Wiscombe, T., 2009. Emergent Models of Architectural Practice. Yale Perspecta #38: 59-68.