Research Study 1 - modified and re-submitted

Chris Heuvel

I have found the process of making ‘minor modifications’ to Document 3 considerably harder than originally writing it.  Initially I welcomed the request for changes, as it gave me the opportunity to go through the document improving the English in the interests of clarity – in particular by describing the research study in the past tense and by using the first person rather than the passive in some sections.  Knowing that I would also need to alter the structure of the document generally, I began by identifying modifications to the text by using a different colour rather than immediately commencing ‘track-changes’ (I was anxious to avoid revising track changes once they’d been made).  I found plenty of instances where text revisions seemed appropriate, and – knowing that additional information was required in respect of both analysis and conclusions – I endeavoured to reduce my word-count wherever possible (in particular, by omitting discussion of the least relevant of my seven ‘case-studies’, and by relegating secondary comments to footnotes).

When I turned my attention to the need to modify the overall structure of this document, I was embarrassed to find what a disorganized text I had produced – with excessive repetition, illogical sequence, and highly idiosyncratic organization (awkwardly based upon the four humours).  Moving large sections of text from one part of the document to another proved a nightmare – both in keeping note of where they had come from and even more in ensuring that the revised sequences of (already altered) paragraphs continued to flow smoothly from one to the next.  With so many paragraphs and sentences relocated, and substantial additions to (and omissions from) the text, it became clear that track-changes would have rendered the document totally unreadable.  In this modified submission, therefore, altered or new wording is in red, original wording is in blue, and omitted text has simply been deleted.

I found that I had written an excessive amount justifying my preparation for the research exercise, and a hopelessly inadequate amount evaluating my findings.  In retrospect, I can attribute these defects partly to the piecemeal way in which the document had been assembled (with multiple breaks between flurries of writing and re-writing), but mainly to the long time spent justifying my approach in advance of commencing actual research activities.

The modified document has five sections rather than four, with headings referring to the sequence of research activities undertaken rather than to a series of different attitudes adopted through the progress of the exercise.  In order to ensure the overall word-count was better balanced between the different sections, at the same time as providing dramatic continuity, the text was organized as three ‘acts’ (roughly modelled upon Blake Snyder’s ‘Save the Cat’ screen-writing formula) – the first two sections being concerned with the contextualization of data, the second two with the development of information, and the final one generalizing my findings in the form of knowledge with potential consequences for the future.

My outstanding concern now is whether such comprehensive re-casting of the document really constitutes ‘minor modifications.’  The revised text has nevertheless been offered in the confident belief that it represents a substantial improvement upon that previously submitted.



'Minor' Modifications?

Chris Heuvel


Something of a set-back: amendments have been requested in relation to my 'Document 3' - partly because it was felt my "thematic linkage to ancient Greek philosophers may be neither necessary or advisable"  as it was obscuring the purpose and structure of the document, and partly because my conclusions had been poorly derived from my data and had not been "crafted more determinedly into clear thematic strains."  It is annoying that this feedback has been received just at the end of the long summer holiday when I could have devoted ample time to revising my text, and now I will have to combine this task with the very busiest part of the academic year.  On the other hand, I fully understand and accept these criticisms, perceiving that my function is not after all to entertain my supervisors with rhetorical flourishes or witty cross-references to obscure parallels, as if hoping to dazzle them with displays of intellectual gymnastics, but more to state clearly my objectives, my methods, my findings and my conclusions.  So I now have until November to re-submit Document 3 with what are described as 'minor modifications'.  The problem is that, as they concern structure and properly developed conclusions, these seem more like major alterations to the document. 

Organising my information

Chris Heuvel

Before I become too deeply immersed in the next stage of my researches (which will need to begin with some investigation into ‘action research’ as a specific method – or should that be methodology?), it would be appropriate to summarise how I have been ‘filing’ the information sources on which I’ve been relying to various extents.  The benefit of such categorisation has perhaps been mostly in terms of self-reassuring comfort, stemming from just knowing I have easy access to information as and when I need it – rather than feeling out of my depth because of its variety and quantity (not to speak of my inability to understand or digest much of it).  Previous journal entries (13.12.15 and 15.06.16) have described my use of computer-based folders in which to store articles or book reviews under the headings a) Methodology, b) Community (in general), c) Community Architecture / Innovation (in particular), d) Practice / Business (in general), and e) Particular Firms / People.  When I was identifying the practices chosen for interview as ‘case studies’ for Doc 3, for example, all my text and commentary had been stored in the ‘Community Architecture’ folder.  In the meanwhile, however, over the excessively long period it took me to produce Doc3, I had developed another system for ‘filing’ hard copies of selected articles (mostly news or opinion items culled from professional journals and websites in the interests of maintaining or tracking ‘topicality’) together with textbooks (at one point, I had borrowed 31 from the Boots Library).  The system involved stacking these in separate piles all over the floor of my flat, with sticky post-it notes identifying their contents:

·      social place-making

·      digital technology and innovation / smart cities / post phenomenology

·      participation theory

·      practice-informed research

·      RIBA policy and guidance

·      government policy / legislation

·      community-led design / community-oriented design

·      social housing initiatives

·      architects and business / architects as developers

·      housing principles and types.

These headings (in no particular order) had evolved in response to my decision to start ‘sorting’ my notes, based upon what seemed to be different themes within their content, rather than being imposed as an outcome of the main or subsidiary research questions, or of decisions about how I might subdivide my text, etc.  For the moment, this seems a manageable information-containment system, and I have moved the paper-based articles to my drawing-board (horizontal) and the books – again in piles – to the floor beneath.  Book piles are not labelled, but are generally organised:
practice-informed research

·      architectural education / School of Architecture project offices

·      business management

·      philosophy

·      social organisations

·      participation

·      research guidance.

Having suffered a flood in the flat just before Easter (fortunately not affecting the area of floor being used for information storage), I was obliged to move everything out of the contractors’ way so that the vinyl floor finish could be re-laid – providing an opportunity to review, remind myself, and renew my filing ‘system’ (and the incentive to return over half the borrowed books to the library).  At this stage, I see no need to change any of my randomly derived filing categories.

Taking Stock

Chris Heuvel

... Actually, returning it: today I’ve returned to the library many of the books I’ve had out on loan – some for more than a year: many were read cover-to-cover, a few hardly read at all, but just having them available (in separate piles over part of my floor area) provided a kind of comfort.  They served as sources of quotations, inserted in hope of making my text sound more authoritative (or simply making me seem more well read, to dress up my work in terms of academic respectability).  The truth is, however, that much of what I read in those books I barely understood – and I have to attribute my non-comprehension to innate lack of intellectual grounding rather than to the authors’ inability to write clearly.  In terms of my own writing, I perceive, the effect has been the production of an equally obscure text – in a poor (because non-comprehending but nevertheless awestruck.) imitation of what I think I’ve read, in terms both of content and style.  I discussed this briefly with Anna Souto (DArch course director) this morning, and she reassured me that my style will gradually become less obfuscatory as my confidence in respect of the content grows, so that – by the time I get to Document 5, the main thesis, which is actually the only part that my external examiners will read (there will be two of them, I was advised) – I should have attained mastery in terms of intelligibility.  Removing the intimidating books (even if temporarily only) has been a first step in this direction, but now – for Document 4 (Research Study 2) – I am resolved to use rather simpler language, perhaps presented in an unusual format which I must run past my supervisors before I progress to far along the proposed road.  I intend to run my Appendix (describing ‘Action’) as a parallel text alongside my ‘Research’ (comprising commentary upon the former), aiming to demonstrate how my insights have been deeply rooted in ‘live’ engagement as a practitioner, on the grounds that this approach would be eminently appropriate within the ‘Professional Doctorate’ context in which I am operating.

Research Study 1 - submitted!

Chris Heuvel

Another long gap between blog entries – this time because of the priority accorded to the completion of ‘Research Study 1’ (the document based upon interviews with practitioners).  The deadline for submission of this study – already extended from 7th February to 29th April – proved a challenge to meet, principally because so much time had passed since I started writing the document (beginning with lots of discussion about methodology in the absence of data to analyse), with the result that I kept re-visiting and editing already written parts of the text rather than developing new sections.  Sometimes I found I was repeating ideas I’d forgotten I had already discussed many months earlier, and at other times I found some of these earlier ideas not merely irrelevant but contrary to what I needed to say in my final version (for example, I felt obliged to omit reference to personal impressions of the practitioners’ working environments, having asserted that the focus was to be upon practice/community connections within the stories they told).  Two important pieces of guidance I was offered in supervision tutorials complicated my progress still further: firstly, I was advised that my first draft ‘introduction’ section was much too long – so parts of the text were redistributed across other sections of the document (prejudicing the clarity of the overall argument).  And secondly, I was advised not to refer to my Appendices (centred on the practitioner interviews) as ‘case studies’ as they contained only a narrow range of data about the firms – meaning that much of my methodological study was redundant.  In my last supervision tutorial, it had been observed that my accounts of the firms interviewed resembled more closely the kind of description that practices would expect to encounter in professional practice – not precise transcriptions but decent paraphrases, made subject to the interviewees’ approval before being made public.  The Appendices were therefore to be regarded not as research outcomes, therefore, but as the material upon which research could begin.  My feeling is that not nearly enough of the recently submitted study consisted of academically ‘deep’ analysis of this material, although I believe the merely descriptive conclusions drawn in respect of overall differences (and very few similarities) between the practices interviewed will be of interest to fellow-professionals.  Instead, the majority of the study consists (in my judgement, for the reasons outlined above) of a rather muddled and disjointed account of theoretical ideas about analysis assembled piecemeal over a protracted period during which my approach changed.  In addition, the study overall is held together by some rather silly conceits – a structure based (for no particular reason other than to show off one’s learning) upon the four medieval humours with their ties to the four elements earth/air/fire/water and to the ancient Greek philosophers associated with each.  As with the last document submitted, I feel extremely nervous that the work will be judged sub-standard, and that I will be required to re-write substantial parts of it.  If by some chance this doesn’t happen, I will still retain my analysis-notes on the interviews conducted in order perhaps to use them in my main thesis next year (‘Document 5’).  In the meanwhile, as a matter of professional integrity (because this is what I promised to do), I must send copies of the relevant parts of Document 3 to the practices I interviewed, in case they wish to offer further comment on my ‘findings’.  If these comments don’t feed into Document 5 in due course, they might at least serve in relation to possible journal articles I am now able to write further to my research study 1.

Floundering: am I researching something that doesn't exist - am I asking a futile research question?

Chris Heuvel

I’ve been having enormous trouble pinning down practitioners for an interview.  I had really been hoping to catch two in Bristol and two in London by tomorrow, but the earliest date I managed to fix is 24th November – disappointingly after my next supervisory tutorial when Tom had asked me to bring some initial ‘results’ (the product of a process I now begin to understand as ‘the empirical moment’ to which Kevin has been saying he’s also looking forward).  Part of the problem has been identifying practices which really specialise in user-engagement in the design process – there seem to be more which occasionally operate in this way, but not consistently.  In conjunction with my current reading of Saul Alinsky (‘Rules for Radicals’, 1971), with his suggestions that “a society devoid of compromise is totalitarian” (p.59) and that “concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa” (p.32), I’m beginning to think that perhaps the difficulties I’m experiencing relate to the fact that I’m looking for examples of something which doesn’t exist – an architectural practice that derives all its income from public engagement projects.  If so, perhaps this speculative observation could act as a hypothesis which can serve as the kind of ‘analytic generalisation’ that Yin (2003:50) describes as essential to the design of a case study – enabling data to be evaluated in relation to a ‘rival theory’ to be tested (for replicability rather than for sampling-based logic).

Yin observes that

            “…‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, capturing what you are really interested in answering, led you to the case study as the appropriate strategy in the first place.  Nevertheless, these ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions do not point to what you should study.  Only if you are forced to state some propositions will you move in the right direction…  At the same time, some studies may have a legitimate reason for not having any propositions.  This is the condition – which exists in experiments, surveys, and the other research strategies alike – in which a topic is the subject of ‘exploration.’  Every exploration, however, should still have some purpose.  Instead of propositions, the design for an exploratory study should state this purpose, as well as the criteria by which an exploration will be judged successful” (p.22).

Yin also notes that:

“…theory development prior to the conduct of any data collection is one point of difference between case studies and related methods such as ethnography and grounded theory” (p.28).

What will my ‘rival theory’ be?  That one alternative to engaging only occasionally in community-oriented projects might be to supplement architectural practice with teaching-based activities.

Smart Practice

Chris Heuvel

Attended the RIBA “Smart Practice’ conference today (taking advantage of the fact that it was held at NTU).  Keynote speaker was Patrick Schumacher from Zaha Hadid’s office, who asserted that the practice couldn’t afford to operate the way it does without its links into academia.  It strikes me this is the case with 2hD also – even for similar reasons: just as a very large practice may wish to engage with PhD students to undertake exploratory work with innovative technology (that can then be wheeled out in response to a competition opportunity), so might a very small one find it useful to collaborate with a School of Architecture in order to involve students in research into specific social or cultural contexts etc.  One shouldn’t/doesn’t go into teaching for the attraction of the income – it’ an opportunity to gather information (at the same time as disseminating it).

I’m struck also by the observation that it’s not the strongest or most intelligent that survive – it’s the most adaptable (another advantage of being a very small practice – providing its members are constantly alert to business opportunities).  The most useful insight, however, was the observation made during a panel discussing ‘seeking new opportunities abroad’ that the key is to identify partner-practices where one is working, with a sound understanding of local rules and expectations, local culture and protocols etc.  The strategy needs to be the same if one is seeking ‘international commercialisation’ (in the name of business expansion) as for when larger practices want to engage in community-oriented design: the key is to collaborate with local practitioners – preferably even undertaking the project in their name (in an international context where fees are relatively low, it may be more appropriate in terms of income to use one’s own more highly respected name).  If the practice is operating through a branch office, of course, it is able to charge only the local going rates.

The lesson is that habits of collaboration with partners may be regarded as a business-like (ie viable) alternative to growth in terms of practice numbers.  The criteria for selecting a partner must be not their design skills or style, but their familiarity with local expectations, methods of working, and the whole context for project delivery.  In the end, the most important aspect of both winning a commission and delivering it successfully is the product of an ability to ask the right questions in order really to understand the clients (including customs, culture and memories) and their brief – this is actually more important than being able to deliver (the usual, expected solutions) in accordance with a project managers’ expectations.

Included in this collaboration must be a whole set of behaviours, it was observed by Elizabeth Kavanagh – the ‘big sister’ for Stride Treglown (to whom I promised to write in conjunction with Research Project 1 – based in their Bristol office): “enabling rather than directing, asking not telling, open and inclusive not autocratic, taking responsibility not blaming”: all this is discussed in the ‘Behaviours for Collaboration’ (Bh4Coll) twitter, which therefore merits exploration.  This kind of behaviour should therefore be taught in architecture schools, being even more important than knowledge and skills – associated with a focus upon relationships rather than the task (a new BS11000 is being developed in relation to teamworking standards).

How Thesis Recommendations might Succeed

Chris Heuvel

Caught Matthew Taylor delivering his annual RSA Chief Executive’s lecture “why policy fails – and how it might succeed” (12.09.16), tagged with ‘community engagement.’  He referred to what Helen Margetts and her colleagues describe as “the chaotic pluralism of politics in an age of social media” (a reference to Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., and Yasseri, T., 2016.  Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action.  Woodstock: Princeton University Press).  If my thesis is to conclude with ‘Recommendations’, I’d better read this first.  Taylor’s conclusion is that policy can only work when it’s part of a bigger shift in social attitudes – “a symbol of a renewed belief in the possibility of major advances in the way we live, the way we treat each other, and in what we expect from life.”  It needs to be “shrewdly designed to channel and accelerate a wider civic momentum.”  It’s not just chiming with public opinion, but needs to involve civic preparedness.  Such ideas are based, he says, on Mary Douglas’ theoretical framework and her observation that successful policy needs to work at three levels, based on the social skills of human beings – a) hierarchy: it works functionally and rationally, authority, expertise, rules, robustness.  b) solidarity in terms of values: it appeals to people’s sense of justice and fairness.  c) individualism: people can there’s something in it for themselves, it can be used.

On return from holidays

Chris Heuvel

Back from summer in France, spent reading but not writing: a) Jeremy Till – ‘Architecture Depends’ (2009), good on allowing for the unexpected and disorder within architectural practice; b) J Hughes and S Sadler (eds.) – ‘Non-Plan’ (2000), featuring classic essays on participation in modern urbanism; and c) John Thompson – ‘Critical Hermeneutics’ (1981), concerned with philosophy in relation to language (an intellectually challenging study of Wittgenstein / Ricoeur / Habermas – now on page 118 and hard going).  All to be reviewed in greater detail now that I’m up-to-date in terms of teaching/preparation responsibilities.

Having walked round the ‘Mapping Nottingham’s Identity’ exhibition in Central Library on Monday evening with Dasha, this evening she led a lively and well-attended workshop on the Sneinton part of her work.  Participants were invited to a) identify what resources (based upon who they are or what organisations they represent) they felt able to use or deploy in order to improve the quality of life in the area; b) identify what activities they could engage in, on the basis of these resources; c) describe two specific changes in the future that might reflect progress towards the kind of ‘improvement’ envisaged; and finally d) describe actions that might be taken in order to bring about such changes.  In the final part of this exercise, participants were invited to identify these ‘action’ ideas as either risky/difficult or viable/worthwhile.  Well presented and an opportunity to renew contact with some old friends as well as meeting some interesting new people: eg a) ‘Rich’ from NTU –associated with RSA and citizenship (he will email me tomorrow to say more about himself); b) someone from Backlit Gallery – also interested in public participation; c) Alva from Nottingham Contemporary – who invited me to an event there tomorrow evening related to their ‘City Questions summer school’ (looking at the Broadmarsh Shopping Centre renewal plans in terms of citizen engagement); d) Bahbak Hashemi-Nezhad (, from RCA claiming an interest in regeneration and community participation and the presenter at Nottingham Contemporary tomorrow (having previously worked on an event for Hyson Green, based in the New Art Exchange: I took his email address and promised to let him know about my own interests before we meet again).  Tom Hughes advised me there is a strong likelihood that Sneinton alchemy will suggest Old School Hall, next to Greens Windmill, as a focus for my proposed action-research – we are to meet tomorrow to discuss this further.  And then Friday/Saturday is to be DArch Workshop 4.1 – no email received yet advising of the proposed programme.

So back into the flow in terms of material for Research Study 2 perhaps, but still some major work to be put into Research Study 1 before I can submit it:  a) complete Appendix A identifying community architecture projects and initiatives.  b) complete the Assemble case study (having received no feedback on my summary of their narrative).  c) contact at least two more practices with a view to interviewing them in order to acquire Case Study material – requiring consolidation of my Appendices on survey questions and protocols, followed by writing up the Case Studies themselves; d) complete Doc 3 text, drawing conclusions from my Case Studies.

Feedback on Document 2

Chris Heuvel

After a long wait, I’ve finally received my feedback on Document 2 (the literature review). To my surprise, I find it has been recommended for a PASS with no requirement for even minor modifications.

I really feel, however, as though I’ve hardly begun to explore the literature: the production of Document 2 has served little purpose beyond identifying what I now need to read and analyse — it has certainly not provided me with what I can confidently identify as ‘a gap in the knowledge’ which my research should therefore address. Worst of all, despite Umberto Eco’s advice in ‘How to Write a Thesis’ (MIT, 2015), I feel as though I’ve simply been playing a game — aiming to show off ‘cleverness’ through pyrotechnics of cross-referencing and rhetoric, rather than seriously laying down a clear and systematic explanation of current ideas about the research topic.

On the other hand, while checking for Eco’s advice, I encountered exactly the excuse I may need for providing a paraphrase rather than a transcription of my interview with Assemble: “if you consult any dictionary you will see that the word ‘exactitude’ is not among the synonyms of faithfulness. They are rather loyalty, honesty, respect, and devotion” (Eco, U.  ‘Dire quasi la stessa cosa: Esperienze di traduzione’ Milan: Bompiani 2003).

Interviewing 'Assemble'

Chris Heuvel

What I found, in preparing for my ‘interview’ with Assemble by first compiling information on them and then using it to frame potential questions to ask them, is that my respondent provided such extensive and detailed answers that some of the questions became redundant, others became irrelevant.  I feel obliged to put inverted commas around the word ‘interview’ as the event was more like a presentation, followed by a question-and-answer session.  It meant that I had to adopt a highly flexible, loose-fit technique, in which some of the questions I would like to have asked were initially overlooked.  It also meant that time ran out for all the pre-prepared questions to be posed (the room had been hired for only two hours).  Fortunately, my planned method involved sending the respondent a transcript of the highly edited ‘interview’ and inviting him to edit it further with corrections, clarifications, suggested additional remarks, and requested omissions (in the interests of commercial confidentiality etc).

Above all, because this was a public event (organised by the Norfolk Contemporary Art Society – NCAS), with me acting as host and inviting questions from ‘the floor’, I had no control over what questions were asked – nor, in the interests of democracy and courtesy, did I seek such control (I could have ‘planted’ questions to be raised by particular individuals, but felt this would be unethical and inconsistent).  As a result, some of the questions asked, and answers provided, have been omitted from the transcript (on the grounds that I immediately judged them irrelevant to my research question), while other questions and answers have been subsumed into the framework of my own ‘pre-prepared questions.’  In other words, the transcript does not purport to be a verbatim replica of what was said (as if such a feat were possible, or even necessary): it is intended merely to capture a selection of the information obtained by reference to a series of preconceived headings, presented not in the order in which the questions were asked, and not quoting actual words used (except where identified in inverted commas).

Because of the ‘in public’ nature of the interview, it was also impossible to record the planned contextual observations (suggested on the grounds that environment invariably influences what is said and how, and may therefore contribute to the interpretation of, or weight given to, ‘information’).  Some circumstantial notes in the immediate aftermath may nevertheless be useful.

The respondent had no control over the shape of the auditorium, the lighting level, or where people sat.  The space was semi-circular, with a projection screen in the centre and lectern with microphone and computer to one side, with a small table adjacent on which water was provided.  I stood up to introduce our guest, he stood up to show and talk about a series of photographs of Assemble’s work, then I stood up again to round the session off and thank him for his presentation.  Two chairs were located on either side of the screen for myself and the respondent to sit down while questions were being asked, and while a member of the NCAS committee thanked us both for bringing the event together.  Our guest spoke confidently and articulately (having no doubt given similar talks many times before); he had a sheaf of paper sticking out of his jacket pocket, but was not observed to refer to it even once.

Afterwards, members of the audience confided to me that they felt this had been the best talk in this year’s NCAS programme – reflecting a combination of the clarity of the presentation, the inherent interest of the material and ideas presented, and the overall professionalism of the event’s delivery.  Which was gratifying, of course.

Research becomes more tightly incorporated into 2hD's business strategy

Chris Heuvel

In today’s 2hD strategic planning meeting, it was agreed that my research activities should be more closely linked to the practice’s blog and website (currently being reconstructed to feature ‘education’ and ‘research’ as additional primary activities being undertaken in 2hD’s name). 

Reassuringly, my co-directors also undertook to involve themselves more deeply in my output as a researcher, offering to comment on my text and to draw any apparently relevant publications to my attention.  In particular, it was suggested that I immediately begin to explore opportunities for the ‘action research’ project to be commenced in September — recording developments in relation to this exercise on the practice’s main blog rather than in my blog of personal reflections on the process of writing the Prof Doc text.

It was also suggested that Tom should come to a meeting with my Research Supervisor in September, to discuss 2hD’s role in relation to the action research exercise I will be undertaking in the practice’s name. In the meanwhile, I am to take responsibility for drafting text for the ‘education’ and ‘research’ pages of the practice’s website upgrade… The latter is to feature a call to any community groups who feel they might benefit from this kind of action-research exercise (with costs effectively underwritten by NTU, who are paying me to carry out my Prof Doc) to make contact with us — the aim being to provide alternative options for the ‘pro bono’ research project. If the people who are not selected for the Prof Doc exercise then express a wish to  proceed in any case, this could even result in a possible paid commission for 2hD — effectively, in fulfilment of my research objective (how practices can grow in conjunction with community engagement projects).

Misgivings following Submission of Document 2

Chris Heuvel

Another long period has elapsed since the previous entry.  I managed to submit Document 2 by the revised deadline 19th April, but very conscious that I had not read many peer-reviewed journal articles closely related to my main research topic – Document 2 was largely a rather broad-ranging discussion of the context for my choice of topic and the associated methodology, and perhaps insufficient by way of literature review.  I am aware however, that ‘literature review’ has by no means finished – it will form a key part also of Documents 3, 4 and 5 (and possibly even a small part of Document 6).  While still awaiting actual feedback on Document 2 (now nearly 3 months later), I have nevertheless started in earnest on the actual writing of Document 3 – now strongly aware of the time required not just to commit myself to text but also to insert references in such a way that the Bibliography emerges with minimal need for editing.  Firstly I have devised a 4-part structure for Document 3 (based upon the humours/elements and loosely taking pre-Socratic philosophers associated with each as a starting-point for the relevant section).  Secondly, I have edited all the items in my RefWorks library, combining them in a single folder rather than separating methodology/community/business/practices – but still finding the insertion of citations extremely tedious.  I had considered applying for a further extension for Document 3, as the deadline falls in the middle of the summer holiday while I’ll be away in France, but have been advised that there’s no need for this as I’ll be given six months from the date I receive feedback on Document 2.  Having now written about half the number of words required for Documents 3, however, I’m hoping to complete and submit before the first Workshop related to Document 4 (in mid-September) – ideally even before leaving for France.  The latter seems rather less likely however, as I haven’t yet even started inviting research participants to help with Document 3, I haven’t completed my Ethical Statement for supervisors to sign-off before I start my proposed fieldwork.  What I have written is a justification for my choice of research method, based upon further reading but this time more promptly expressing my ideas in writing.  Hoping that somehow I won’t be required to re-write substantial parts of Document 2 before proceeding, I plan to discuss what I’ve written so far to my supervisors within the next month – Kevin in term of philosophical validity, and Tom in terms of structural acceptability.  I have also become conscious of Umberto Eco’s demand that one writes to argue a case rather than to prove how clever one is – I fear that, due to lack of confidence, I’m still too much in the latter mode.  This is especially brought home to me when I read certain authors’ journal articles etc, in which they succeed in writing in simple language of complex insights: in particular, the book I’ve just finished reading (while away for a long weekend away abroad), ‘Small Change.’  I am aware that I am more and more encountering texts that refer to other texts I’m already aware of, and ‘Small Change’ seemed to offer the particular virtue of bringing together the ideas of numerous authors I’ve already quoted: I interpret this kind of ‘coincidence’ as a sign that I’m now beginning to work at the boundaries of existing knowledge in the field.  On the other hand, I’m conscious that neither of my supervisors comes from my own discipline area, and that a specialist external examiner might find the current state of my knowledge rather trite and riddled with significant gaps.

Language as a Virus from Outer Space

Chris Heuvel

It’s clear why I make these journal entries so infrequently: with the deadline approaching, I spend all my time on the main text rather than on reflections (or else focus upon even more immediate tasks related to my teaching/admin duties).  With no notes recorded at the time however, I must summarise the outcomes of a discussion-event in which I participated at the New Art Exchange, Nottingham, this evening.  Described as “the culmination of months of conversations with artists, institutions and communities across the city” (having previously run similar exercises in Milan and New York I think he said), the Italian ‘curator’ Claudio Zecchi led a series of what he called ‘games’ to “explore how art engages with the local community, and the legacy of these relationships.”

The first exercise required us (groups of 3-6 around half a dozen tables) to identify and model the time-span required for community projects: it emerged that several need to be running concurrently – some extremely short, others much much longer, some mixing both, but above all lots of cross-currents of projects which come to nothing, which come from nowhere, or which develop into other projects (a good model for how a community-orientated practice ought to operate).  The next exercise centred on the use of language in community projects, drawing attention to its role in shaping power-relationships and in enabling people to express their identity (‘self-forming’): my own group picked on William Burroughs’ concept of language as “a virus from outer space” – we think we’re speaking it, but in fact it is the words that are projecting ourselves into the spaces between people (a reminder of Latour’s reference to the Mafalda comic strip – p.55 in “On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods” – and reference to the ancient Greek ‘middle voice’: neither active nor passive, as the boundaries between object/subject, made/maker, acted upon/actor are not so definite).  Zecchi also asked us to consider the relationship between the words ‘long term,’ ‘language’ and ‘sharing’ – revealing that long-term community relationships allow a common language to develop which enables ideas to be shared.  In the final game, about ‘sharing’ (which we distinguished from simply ‘exchanging’ – another insight relevant to the problem of putting a monetary ‘value’ upon community interchange), we identified the word ‘empowerment’ as a key feature – although another group chose ‘blurring’ in consideration of the space between people rather than taking the viewpoint of the individuals themselves as we had done.  When it came to ‘acting out’ our understanding of this word, everyone had recourse to gestures – the most successful being the group who demanded that everyone copied their movements (this being a community-orientated event, after all): the lesson is, just do something – it’s not about talk.  Times English Dictionary (p.1706) defines ‘voice’ as “a category of…verbal inflections that expresses whether the relation between the subject and the verb is that of agent and action, action and recipient, or some other relation” – the latter being ‘middle’, defined (p.984) as “(especially in Greek or Sanskrit grammar)…expressing reciprocal or reflexive action.”  Deeper understanding of the ‘middle’ is available via : omitted from the dictionary description, for example, is the rather inaccurately termed (but commonly used) third alternative of ‘intensive’ action.  There is no equivalent in English, but we tend to use the active voice with a reflexive (“-self”) pronoun or “each other” (if plural); in Hellenistic Greek, no pronoun is necessary, as the middle voice signals that the subject of a sentence represents in some sense the benefactor of the action expressed by the verb.  The subject of the verb is seen as acting upon itself or for its own benefit – eg ‘John bought himself a new car’ or ‘Jane accepted the offer’: in Greek, the middle voice is used mainly to imply that the subject benefits or suffers directly from the action expressed by the verb (it is often the case, though not always, that the subject also represents the cause of that action).

The Referencing Software Nightmare - and Delayed Submission

Chris Heuvel

So this evening the deadline for Doc2 came: I had just about completed Part 1 – the difficult ‘conceptual framework’ exposition (over 5½k words), but a considerable amount of work remained to be done on Parts 2 and 3.  I was asked not to submit Part 1 alone (expecting to be asked to undertake ‘major modifications’), but instead to request an extension for the whole document – so my new deadline is to be 19th April.

Looking back over the last two or three weeks, when I set about transferring my completed work (with many references set out within the text) from my laptop to my NTU student-file, I have had to adjust to the following issues:
a)  I can only gain access to my NTU student log-in via my staff-room computer if I first log-in as a member of staff, then log off and ‘switch user’.  Or vice versa – meaning I cannot move information directly between my staff account and my student account.  My initial efforts to maintain all three folders in parallel (on my staff account, my student account and my own laptop) have therefore been a waste of time: I should therefore delete all the DArch files on my staff account, in order to eliminate the need to keep them updated.

b)  I cannot (yet) pick up RefWorks when I use my laptop to gain access to NTU files, which means that text I write when away from NTU has to have all references included within it.  The problem is that when I transfer information to from my laptop to my student folder, I cannot simply log-in to RefWorks in order to create and save each new reference as I encounter it, returning afterwards to editing the text itself.  I have to log-in to RefWorks each time I switch from editing text to inserting references.  This means I am obliged to go through my text first, identifying several references in succession, and then returning to text editing.

c)  Once I have created a new reference, however, when I return to the text I find I cannot proceed directly to use ‘Write-N-Cite’ to re-insert it into the text in a way that will automatically populate my bibliography.  I have to log off, then log on again, then log-in to RefWorks again, and only then am I able to find the new references created at stage (b) above.  It seems as though the RefWorks software only works efficiently if all the references are created in advance of any of the text to which they are to be related: this is impractical for people who prefer to create and insert references as they proceed. 

d)  When offered, it seemed a good idea to take the advice that RefWorks items could be split into separate folders and sub-folders – with the additional possibility of recording comments on each item deeper within each entry.  Both when creating new references and when using ‘Write-N-Cite’ to select particular entries, the folder has to be opened up in order to expose the sub-folder before it can be selected.  There is also the problem that sometimes items are found not in the expected sub-folder but for some reason (no doubt due to human error) lurking in the main folder instead, or even in the ‘Last Imported’ folder.  When moving items from one folder to another, the same problem is encountered – the main folder has to be opened before it is possible to gain access to any subfolders.

e)  The option of being able to record comments on individual references turned out not to be particularly useful in practice because – in my case at least – there is no foreseeable need to search for items by particular attributes.  It turned out to be more useful to set up separate (Word) files related to each reference item, to summarise their contents, to identify possible quotations, and to add other kinds of ‘margin-notes’.  The advantage of this is that the files can easily be printed and catalogued, whereas the RefWorks folders appear to be accessible on-line only.

f)  Then there is the problem of unreliability.  How items eventually appear in the Bibliography is unpredictable – each needs to be carefully checked for spelling etc.  Reference to a poem by Browning written in 1855 can end up being dated 2007 if that’s the publication date of the latest book containing it.  While they may be dismissed by some people as minor quibbles, the fonts and the meanness of spacings between words in Bibliography entries reduce legibility and are visually unattractive. – and this often does matter to people with an eye for design.  It is also unfortunate that the exact way in which the wording of a reference will appear within the text (if it’s a citation), or within the Bibliography at the end, seems not to be controllable from the Write-N-Cite preview boxes – particularly when three references are quoted together (it seems to be a matter of luck whether or not additional references eliminates earlier ones).

g)  It is also a nuisance that RefWorks does not alert the writer if an item is added twice: duplications only appear when the list is inspected in conjunction with Write-N-Cite.  This can be particularly annoying if the addition of such an item has already involved logging off/logging back on/ logging into RefWorks again.

None of the above can be considered an excuse for late delivery of the work, of course, but time spent resolving issues related to the performance of the software etc is time not spent on more important matters related to the text itself.  The best conclusion is perhaps that some dedicated ‘surgery time’ should be permitted for individuals (related to their production of Document 1), giving them - say - half an hour with an ‘expert’ on RefWorks, Write-N-Cite, or even other tips and tricks related to effective use of Word software etc – perhaps including even the ‘Styles’ function with its relationship to the automatic generation of chapter headings and sub-headings (and page numbers)in a ‘Contents’ section at the start of the document.

In response, Heather Parsonage comes to my desk to help: in media res is not the best way to proceed if using RefWorks, she advises - but this is not my way of working.

Old Men ought to be Explorers

Chris Heuvel

Despite earlier misgivings, I am beginning to appreciate that ‘innovation’ may turn out to be an important theme within my topic.  I discover a highly non-Latourian note amongst my papers to the effect that “the social dimension of innovation can be equally as disruptive as technology or market-led innovation.”  This possibly means nothing, as it is (technological) innovation itself that is disruptive – and society or the market that is disrupted.

“Write a letter to your younger self” – what would I say?  Eliot’s “in my end is my beginning” comes to mind (the last line of East Coker, number two of The Four Quartets) following the Latourian assertion that “Old men ought to be explorers/Here or there does not matter” because the poem in fact started “in my beginning is my end.”  With the submission date for Doc2 rushing towards me, and helpless feelings that there’s so much more to read, that I’ve wasted a lot of time reading the wrong kinds of material in the wrong kinds of way, reinforced by the little Library Support Seminar attended yesterday ‘Searching for Literature – Top 10 Tips’ which would clearly have been much more beneficial back in July or September, I realise that – just as the end of the process is in sight – I at last understand how I should have proceeded.  Do I conclude my Literature Review with the observation that it represents little more than a point of departure, serving merely to identify some of the material to which I will need to continue making references through the remainder of the DArch programme?  Or should I seek permission to submit my Doc 2 later than the February deadline – on the grounds that only now do I feel I have acquired the tools to proceed with my task?  I must have a chat with Tom Fisher, show him all I’ve done to date, and seek his opinion.

What grounds for postponement could I possibly cite?  The truth is, I’ve simply been too slow – long-ingrained habits of being rigorously methodical in organising and examining my material, hopelessly illiterate with regard to taking advantage of IT, and ridiculously painstaking with the formation of sentences.  If my aim is to stick to the deadline, I need to lighten up, proceed chaotically rather than systematically, write first and enrich with references afterwards rather than vice-versa.  How serious am I about the quality of this research?  Do I sacrifice standards in order to satisfy a timetable?  Which matters more – quality or speed?  I feel I know myself well enough to admit that, even if I were permitted more time, I would be quite likely to find myself in an identical position as the deadline approaches – spending ages looking up obscure and possibly irrelevant references, panicking over trivia, exceeding my wordcount and then having to make difficult cuts, etc.  Even writing these reflections, instead of getting on with the job.  Tomorrow, I tell myself, and for the next six weeks, I’ll work frenetically in Boots library – on my main text 6.30-8.30am each morning, and extending my literature search 5.30-8pm each evening, and only attending to emails, admin tasks, teaching preparation, feedback etc during ‘office hours.’  In the evenings at home, I can continue to sort, filter, and reflect on my material in the slow and steady manner with which I am more familiar, but the point is to set my alarm each night for a 5.30am start.  Let’s see how that goes.  New year’s resolution, then.

Coordinating the Random

Chris Heuvel

Having failed to maintain a ‘day-book’ exclusively related to DArch material, I find myself having to go through nine separate notebooks in order to ensure I am losing nothing of value.  The nuggets I discover are therefore quite random:

a)         Descartes is said to have maintained that the chief cause of human error is the prejudices picked up in childhood: everyone is a prisoner of their own experiences.  I discover some deep philosophical reflections on this in Toulmin, S., (1990).  Cosmopolis: the Hidden Agenda of Modernity.  Chicago: Chicago University Press (pages 41-2), where it is suggested this individualism laid the foundations for today’s lack of civic consciousness.

b)        When visiting NTU on 20th October, Adrian Dobson spoke of a formercouncil member Tim Bailey as a Newcastle-based architect keen on locally rooted work.  I see he is principal of Xcite Architecture LLP (established in 2000 – Foundry Lane, NE6 1LH).

Summary of workshops attended in conjunction with Literature Review (organised by NTU Boots Library):

a)             14.10.15 : Tackling your Literature Review

b)            14.10.15 : Managing your References

c)             29.10.15 : Staying Current – Tips and Techniques

d)            12.11.15 : Research Tools and Apps

e)             07.01.16 : Searching for Literature – Top 10 Tips

Nottingham Trent University's Support for this Research

Chris Heuvel

Suddenly NTU appears to provide a highly supportive context in which to research ‘Practice and Community.’  Among the 5 strategic themes the institution has developed as its ‘vision’ are:
a)  ‘valuing ideas’ – concerned with promoting research and innovative pedagogy.

b)  ‘enriching society’ – concerned with civic impact (which is interpreted rather narrowly as “fostering key civic and employer stakeholder partnerships”, under the guidance of Garry Smith, assisted by Peter Westland).

c)  ‘empowering people’ – a merely inward-focussed objective, said to be concerned with valuing staff ideas (though unclearly reflected within the architecture section, where colleagues complain about the inhuman ‘smart working’ regime imposed on them and lack of involvement in the choice of a new Head with clear vision and managerial courage).

NTU is keen to maintain a high profile in respect of employee volunteering, working with Business in the Community (BITC, calling itself “the Prince’s responsible business network”) in the hope of winning Responsible Business Awards.

Back on Track - journal resumption

Chris Heuvel

So... In something of a panic, ‘Document 1’ was submitted shortly before the 23rd June deadline.   My Journal suddenly stops at that point, and I must now resume it.  In the first Workshop related to ‘Document 3’ this weekend, I am reminded (by a recent DArch graduate who came to speak of her experience of the programme) how important these reflections are – and indeed, glancing through the pages completed to date, I see what a long way I’ve come (and I mustn’t forget to revisit these pages to pick up valuable tips and references for incorporation into Document 2 in a couple of months’ time).

Two months to go, and I’ve only written about 2000 words out of the 15,000 total required: very anxious about when I’ll find the time to do this.  I’ve had only two supervision tutorials (having had nothing to show that would have made additional ones worthwhile), but neither Tom nor Kevin seem to share my anxiety.

The tutorials were very helpful, of course, and I realised that I were to arrange more of them, I’d give myself a tighter framework of deadlines within which to achieve the overall target.  Writing this journal now, of course, represents another instance of postponing the main job of getting on with the writing, but it feels appropriate – just before I tackle the main drag upwards – to review what I’ve produced and read since July:

19.05.15: Google Scholar search – an initial foray into the domain to practise gathering some references (with notes on each reading).

11.06.15: Bibliographies – a print-out of articles saved in RefWorks (pending attachment to text via Write-N-Cite software).

13.07.15: Literature Review 1 – a false start, comprising some 960 words on the use of Latour as the basis for selection and critique of literature (suggesting in particular that I should be able to construct my Document 2 out of this Blog – had I only maintained it): I tell myself it’s not too late – this catch-up exercise I’m now undertaking marks the belated start.

15.07.15: Spare material – some text that could not be accommodated in Doc1, notably a paragraph attempting to locate Latour within postmodernist approaches to social research.

17.07.15: Doc2 structure A – another false start, using the template required for the final product but getting no further than suggesting a six-part structure based entirely upon Machi and McEvoy’s ‘The Literature Review – Six Steps to Success’ before actually reading the text: it turned out that only the sixth ‘step’ actually described the process of reviewing literature – most of the remainder of the book related to a systematic way of gathering the information, speed-reading first (a highly linear approach, quite alien to a slow and steady reader like myself though a good suggestion).

August: Holiday reading (in addition to Latour’s ‘Reassembling the Social’ and Machi & McEvoy) consisted of a) Latour, Harman and Erdélyi: The Prince and the Wolf.  b) Harman: Prince of Networks.  c) Wates and Knevitt: Community Architecture.  I also took a whole pile of hard-copy articles which were never tackled.

19.09.15: Reflections on Workshop 2.2 – Workshop 2.2 reflections contain a good quantity of other material that it would be appropriate to review before proceeding any further with the main text of Doc2 (including my programme for its production, in relation to which I am now about 2 months behind). Also containing some material that could usefully have been posted immediately in the Blog:

Unsure about how to organize the content of Doc 2, I have very carefully read Machi & McEvoy ‘The Literature Review – 6 Steps to Success’ (which I found quite tedious and incomprehensibly repetitive for the most part, but persuasive in terms of the recommendation not immediately to start writing but to spend a lot of effort first identifying and organizing my data). What the book omitted to address, however, is the integration of the required epistemological or philosophical base – where am I coming from?  In this respect, the book’s recommended approach presents me with one major, seemingly insurmountable, obstacle.  My chosen theoretical paradigm is the French sociologist Bruno Latour, whose ideas have struck me with a shock of recognition: here’s someone who’s saying exactly what I’ve been thinking for years, occasionally suggesting verbally, but which I’ve never before encountered in writing: two ideas in particular – first, the inadmissibility of connections between cause and effect, and secondly unwillingness to take for granted any such nebulous totalitarianising ideas as ‘society’, ‘community’ etc (one ought instead to be identifying combinations of factors, without presuming to coordinate them under the umbrella of some theoretical, non-material concept).  On reading Latour, I experience Fredric Jameson’s ‘postmodern sublime’: its appalling and terrifying and gloriously exciting all at the same time.  It’s rooted in materialism pragmatism, realism – but it requires me to avoid the habitual temptation to make logical connections between evidence and thesis.  I worry that I will find it difficult to be critical about an author whose thoughts coincide so closely with my own, and whose every well-chosen word commands both respect and enjoyment: how will I critique my own paradigm?

21.09.15: Machi and McEvoy guidance – detailed notes on how to proceed with the literature review (which seem to have substituted for actually doing it).

02.10.15: Chronology – the beginning of a timeline related to the development of ‘community architecture’ as a phenomenon, based initially upon Wates and Knevitt Appendix 3.  I need to add events this year (which should have been identified in Blog reflections), as the ‘movement’ now seems to be experiencing something of a resurgence.

07.10.15: Quotations – a few random quotations that might be inserted into text (mostly related to parallel instances of a Latourian approach).

07.10.15: Refs – a record of some key words used for a database literature search, and some up-to-date books published on the subject (seen on a visit to RIBA bookshop).

In an effort to impose a more coherent structure upon my assorted false starts, collections of references and quotations, and detailed analysis of selected (but perhaps unhelpful) texts, I have grouped subsequent material into five main folders, corresponding to my RefWorks headings:

a)             Methodology
b)            Community (in general)
c)             Community Architecture / Innovation (in particular)
d)            Practice / Business (in general)
e)             Particular Firms / People.

The proposed three-part structure for Document 2 remains as identified on 19.09.15 (except that I’ve dropped the silly names!):

Part 1: Aglaia - gifts of FAITH (5000 words by week 12 – early Oct)

Identity (biases & assumptions / ethics / insider or outsider) – validity: my professional context and research question (and prof’l bodies to be impacted by this)

Philosophy – Latour as the paradigm, and why I’ve joined his gang (problems with it)

Epistemology – with literature critiquing Latour

Part 2: Euphrosyne - embarking with HOPE (6500 words byweek 21 – late Dec)

Arguing for the chosen research methods from the literature: locate proposed research and possible methods within the literature, identifying how these ideas may impact on own research question.


  1. using Latour (ANT) as basis (what are theorists saying about possible research methods?), select literature and identify what methodologies and methods have been used to get similar research questions answered.
  2. using Latour as critique, review of the literature: who has tried what, why, and with what authority/outcomes – identifying the current tensions and debates within the subject.

Part 3 : Thalia – rendezvous with CHARITY outcomes (3500 words – end of Jan)

Conclusion: what/whose methods do I propose to adopt for docs 3 / 4, and why?
Using Latour, how will it be analysed (why this way)? Where is this research expected to sit in relation to all the literature out there? What good may come of this?

To date however, I’ve got no further than part-way through section 1, related entirely to Methodology.  I feel confident about what has been written to date, as it has at least launched the whole exercise in accordance with my proposed structure.  The plan now must be to complete at least this first section before Christmas (within the next week!), to send it off to my supervisors for review next month, and to spend the Christmas holiday on section 2.  I am so desperately short of time, however, that I propose to launch sections 2 and 3 immediately, to give me somewhere to locate relevant material (if I encounter it) before editing the text more carefully.  It’s not comfortable, as I prefer to write slowly and steadily from my start-point within the structure I’ve set myself.  I foresee already the panic at the end of this process...


Nervousness about the Hidden Agenda

Chris Heuvel

As I begin to draft ‘Document 1’, I find myself constantly revising my text, trying to replace all (habitual) reference to causal relationships with less presumptuous terminology. The logical part of me keeps constructing text in terms of consequences – something leads to something else, or one thing results in another; I must work hard to spot such lazy connections (taking nothing for granted) and replace them with more anodyne forms of wording such as something ‘becomes associated with’ something else, or one thing ‘is consistent with’ another. I find myself wondering if this great effort is simply a matter of playing with words, tricking the reader. In my desperation to avoid imposing meaning, I am in fact relying upon a hidden agenda.