Theory

Approaches to participatory research and participatory design practice are constantly evolving. At SSoA we aim to keep exploring new ways of working with people. As part of this process, we explore the roles that people take and explore our role within this as mediators, as well as creative spatial practitioners.

"There is a more plural sense in which architecture is now practiced, including architects and collectives that develop alternative ways to engage people, communities and publics in participatory design. In PD (participatory design) projects and programmes of research that are conducted through practice, distinctions between knowledge that is constructed through teaching, outreach and research become blurred. There is a sense of ongoing mutual learning, living in the midst of change, where ‘becoming’ may be an apt characterisation for architectural participatory design that is always incomplete."

(Luck, R., Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times, Design Studies, Volume 59, 2018, Pages 139-157, ISSN 0142-694X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.)

Questioning and exploring alternative ways of doing architecture through critical reflection and reflective learning is crucial to Live learning. In this sense Liveness can be aligned with McClaren’s definition of critical pedagogy, which seeks to:

 “identify the structural and political assumptions upon which the hidden curriculum rests and to attempt to change the institutional arrangements of the classroom so as to offset the most undemocratic and oppressive outcomes”.

The critical nature of Live learning at SSoA is not just limited to students, but also that of teachers. Liveness encourages teachers to take different positions, and to become active learners. This subtle change helps to break down the hegemony of teacher and pupil, moving to a more democratic learning environment.

(Peter Mclaren, ‘Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts’, in The Critical Pedagogy Reader, ed.s A. Darder, M.P. Baltodano and R.D. Torres.(Abingdon: Routledge, 2009, Second Edition), pp. 61-83.)

One of the key aims of Liveness is to get students out of the studio and into the contexts for which they are designing. As such they are examples of ‘situated learning’, where learning takes place in the same context in which it is applied. At SSoA many of the Live learning opportunities take place in and around Sheffield, creating the opportunity for students to develop ideas of situated practice as they work ‘in residence’ over time with the people who live and work there. This intimate and durational understanding of a context produces work that is not only more appropriate and grounded in a place but comes from students who feel invested in that place through the relationships they have formed there.

The social ethos fostered at SSoA is overt in Live learning, whether looking at the wider social implications of architectural interventions, developing a neighbourhood plan or an urban design project. In terms of pedagogy, this is in tune with Wink’s view on the fundamentals of learning “the purpose of education is to continually reconstruct society”. Whilst Live learning may not aim to ‘reconstruct society’ in a formal manner, it often explores the social underpinning of architectural endeavours and looks to create places that actively engage a wide mixture of people and communities.

(Joan Wink, ‘Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world’. (New York: Longman, 2000, Second Edition)

Liveness marries situated learning with critical pedagogy, a synthesis not dissimilar to what Grueneweld calls a ‘critical pedagogy of place’. This involves an active learner being critical of a situation and its social, economic and political context. The learner in this case can be a student or a citizen and a powerful aspect of Live learning is that it can facilitate the critical pedagogy of both students and citizens. The twin aims of a ‘critical pedagogy of place’, as described by Grueneweld, and underpinned by his themes of ‘decolonization’ and ‘reinhabitation’, are to develop citizens who initiate change based on their experience to improve their own and others’ lives and to develop inhabitants who ‘live well where they are’. A Live learning approach encourages students to partner with local people in an endeavour of shared learning about a context and how it can be transformed to the benefit of its citizens.

(David A. Gruenewald, ‘The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place’, in Educational Researcher, 32(4) (2003), p3-12.)