According to Professor Rob Wallis, national president of the Australian Universities ... These frameworksâfrom Freire to Baileyâunderpin the transformative and ...
1
LEARNING ENABLING DESIGN | Approaching Mutuality In Education Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. This refereed essay was first published in: Quinlan, A., Corkery, L. & Roche, B., 2008, Learning Enabling Design: Approaching Mutuality in an Educational Environment. in B. Garlick, D. Jones & G. Luscombe (Eds). TAKE 6: Beyond Beige. Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), Canberra, 146-165. Original images, drawings and illustrations may be viewed in this publication.
As a domain of creative knowledge, built environment design engages simultaneously and dialectically with ideas and the material world, with the universal and the particular, with the world of theory and the world of practice. Within this interaction, the translation of well-articulated ideas through design practice conversations into well-designed buildings, places, spaces and artefacts can benefit our collective daily lives. At the level of student design studio learning, the ability to translate ideas into material reality is nurtured through project based learning. In some cases, the teacher determines the project. Projects may also emerge from interests, problems and issues identified by community groups. Learning that involves community-based projects with a service element connects students to real design projects, clients and contexts. It requires students to demonstrate their capabilities in a specific situation. In this way, it connects what they think they know with what they actually need to know if they are to adequately address the specific experiences and needs of others. Moreover, community-based projects encourage students to develop the values, attitudes and behaviours expected of the professional as an active citizen in service to the community. This essay introduces an ongoing student design learning project, Rural Community Wellbeing Enhanced through Design. The project engaged architecture students in designing accommodation for rural people with challenged abilities, to enable those people to age in place. Informing the project was a social model of disability. Using this model, undergraduate architecture students generated design responses from the needs of others, rather than from preconceived briefs or students’ and teachers’ personal visions. In this way, the project reveals how service learning through community engagement can respond to Freire’s call for authentic mutuality: Authentic help means that all who are involved help each other mutually, growing together in common effort to understand the reality they seek to transform. Only through such praxis – in which those who help and those who are being helped help each other simultaneously – can the act of helping become free from the distortion in which the helper dominates the helped1. Framework Underpinning our approach to community-based student learning are several conceptual and practice frameworks concerned with educating built environment design students for active citizenship and community engagement. The notion of learning through community engagement builds upon Paolo Freire’s work in Brazil, empowering disenfranchised community groups to exercise decision-making governance in matters that affected their lives. It also grows out of the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin, who developed a model for sensitively addressing cultural and racial prejudice, and identified action research as a means of social change. Ideas such as these found their way into built environment disciplines through the commitment of Henry Sanoff and colleagues to the advancement of participatory design processes. Since the 1960s, Sanoff’s work has anchored community-based design projects in design and planning fields in the United States, Australia, Britain and Europe. Sanoff’s model of community engagement is collaborative, empowering all participants to share their expertise so that ‘the outcome … [is more] insightful and powerful than the sum of individual perspectives’2. Sanoff reminds us that ‘participation is … ‘to engage people in meaningful and purposive adaptation and 3 change to their daily environment’ . In the academic arena, Ernest Boyer’s ground-breaking scholarships model has done much to embed the link between learning and community participation 4. In place of the teaching versus research dichotomy that had Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
2
traditionally structured academic endeavour, Boyer proposed the four scholarships: discovery, teaching, application and integration5. The first two correspond roughly to research and teaching. The scholarships of application and integration, on the other hand, are crucial to enhancing the modern university’s relevance and commitment to contemporary society by connecting disciplinary knowledge to social issues through engaged practice. According to Professor Rob Wallis, national president of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance(AUCEA), ‘community engagement’: ... is now better defined as a two-way relationship leadingto productive partnerships that yield mutually beneficial outcomes. It is thus much more than community participation, community consultation, community service and community development. It also differs from community outreach or extension, in which university experts apply their knowledge to problems they observe or questions the community may propose. … Community engagement is a scholarly activity in which a university’s teaching and learning are integrated with research activities that involve the community as genuine partners 6. As Judd, Baldry and Corkery point out, however, real community engagement that sustains is logistically and ethically complicated ‘for the community and students alike’7. They note: Design educators have long grappled with how to integrate meaningful learning about social concepts into the curriculum … so students can learn about the complex problems faced by disadvantaged communities and how design interventions need to work hand in hand with social initiatives to help improve quality of life 8. With the rise of participatory models in professional practice settings, commentators such as Luck, Till and van Herzele 9 also warn against tokenistic participatory processes in which ‘experts’ impose their expertise on communities but actually reinforce their own authority. Therefore, learning through and for community engagement needs to be shaped by an appropriate value framework. Martha Nussbaum’s notion of capability is helpful here. For Nussbaum, capability involves taking ‘responsibility for our own lives and the consequences for and on others’10 and acting so that ‘our capability for showing consideration to others, for understanding them, 11 for participating ethically in the human condition’ is developed . Bailey identifies four key processes central to an education in values that correspond with Nussbaum’s framework 12. These are the promotion of rationality, the development of empathy, the fostering of empowerment and esteem, and the furthering of cooperation. These frameworks—from Freire to Bailey—underpin the transformative and cooperative pedagogy that shaped the community-based, service-learning project described in this essay. Indeed, this essay argues that built environment design education is particularly well placed to apply and advance such pedagogy as the basis for preparing students to design places and spaces that will profoundly enhance people’s lives. Background to the project The emphasis on linking students’ design learning with communities through real-life projects is part of the educational ethos embedded in the Architecture degree program of the Faculty of the Built Environment (FBE) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Students have always undertaken community-based design projects, whether on a compulsory or elective basis as part of their coursework 13. The Rural Community Wellbeing Enhanced through Design project continues this tradition, and works in association with FBEOutThere! (FBEOT) 14. The Rural Community Wellbeing Enhanced through Design project connects our students with the Lambing Flat 15 Enterprises (LFE) rural community service group in Young, in central western NSW. Established in 1972, LFE operates according to a social enterprise model, and its mission is: To provide training, support and advocacy to individuals with challenged ability, enabling individuals to fulfil their greatest potential. In every aspect of service delivery, LFE is always focused upon the needs and choices of the individual. Gething argues that rural people with disabilities are doubly disadvantaged not only because of their 16 impairments but also because of their location: they typically feel isolated, lonely and socially excluded . In meeting its commitment to rural people with challenged abilities, this group has established a range of Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
3
services 17 and innovative, supported employment enterprises that respond to the needs of around 100 children and adults in Young and its region. In 1979, LFE built a residential complex where rural people with intellectual and physical disabilities could live independently while learning and practising life skills and training for employment in the workplace. At the time, students from the UNSW School of Architecture 18 developed design proposals for a short-term accommodation residential complex, reported to be the first of its kind in Australia. LFE subsequently noted that ‘the model has been proven to be very successful with residents starting out in group home setting, graduating into selfcontained units, and then moving into the community once they have obtained sufficient skill’ 19. Various daily experiences structure LFE residents’ lifestyles. Many rise early, around 5 or 6 am, and retire to bed around 7 pm. They cook their own meals and dine out in the town or at LFE social BBQs. During the day, they work, shop, pay bills, attend appointments, participate in sporting and hobby interests, and enjoy socialising in the town. They are able to walk to work, to the supermarket and into the town centre LFE’s service users 20 have aged since the original complex was built, and LFE wanted to provide them with safe, secure, long-term accommodation for their later years. Above all, the desire was to give people with challenged abilities an environment in which they may live independently within the community, receiving quality support in a familiar environment, without fear of having to move prematurely into institutional aged care facilities. LFE therefore asked whether the opportunity still existed to work with students; specifically, LFE needed the students to design 10 to 11 single-dwelling homes for the ageing service users on a selected site in the rural township of Young. The FBEOT unit worked with FBE staff to develop an innovative educational project, offered as a design project option within the Architecture year 4 core elective design studio stream. The project’s first phase, discussed in this essay, involved 16 Architecture students who participated in a 14-week design studio program, culminating in an exhibition for community comment and deliberation. The community selected six student design projects. In the second academic session of 2007, these six projects were advanced in an interdisciplinary design studio, with 22 Landscape Architecture students and 11 Architecture students assisted by visualisations developed by Architectural Computing students. Approach to social and design issues The central aim of this student design project was and is to design places and spaces that allow ageing people with adversity of intellectually and physically challenged abilities to lead independent and dignified lives. It has therefore been important for students to consider appropriate models of disability alongside the ways in which design interactions with and for people with disabilities typically occur. Models of Disability The social model of disability, which seeks to affirm and empower people with impairments, informed this project 21. This model explicitly rejects the notion of disability as difference, a social burden that requires categorisation, care and biomedical intervention. It also rejects attempts to change people with disabilities so that they fit into ‘normal’ society. Rather, it sees ‘disability’ as a social construction and a function of the discrimination and exclusion experienced by people who live with various impairments. Although the social model is not without its critics, in the context of our project it is helpful because it encourages empathetic design responses and helps students to understand the lived reality of the service users and their carers. Design Interactions In this project, we were keen to listen to the LFE service users and staff in order to understand fully the significant activities of their daily lived experiences, their individual and collective needs. But collaborative design that enhances service users’ wellbeing and quality of life goes beyond merely ‘consulting’ those users 22 about their needs. Research indicates that, despite consultation and public participation, professional experts often misunderstand or misrepresent the very real interests of people with disabilities. For Parnell this research also raises serious questions about the capacity of architects to be active citizens who are collaborative and empathetic design professionals. She notes: Architecture finds itself within a political and social climate, which is demanding more participatory processes. If the profession isolates itself from its context, then it will soon find that it is out of touch and might eventually render itself redundant 23. To help students activate the social model of disability and avoid the traps of conventional interactions with people with disabilities, we guided students to investigate design aspects that could meet the real needs of the Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
4
service users, rather than design ideas informed by generalised architectural concepts and formal precedents. Students also reviewed research literature24 appropriate to the project, before they experienced the project’s location. These considerations and activities encouraged students to view themselves as professional citizens as well as artful designers who could respond to the service users’ experiences and needs through listening, visiting their homes and LFE studio interactions. Studio structure and process This project emphasises student responsibility and self direction. Therefore, one of students’ first tasks was to establish the learning outcomes they aspired to achieve in the initial architectural design studio. These were to: • • • •
design empathetically and meet the needs of others, not solely their own needs as designers learn how to use their theoretical knowledge to develop a feasible project produce effective group work and enhance individual productivity within a team design appropriately for affordability, sustainability and self sufficiency.
Students also contributed to the structuring and weighting of the academic assessment criteria for the project. The learning activities through which students achieved their intended learning outcomes are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Design studio learning activities Goal
Activities
• • •
Research
• • •
Literature review of scholarship in interdisciplinary fields Review of legislative standards (BASIX), policies (Seniors Living, SEPP10) Review of best practice models (QLD smart housing) and case studies (Montefiore Randwick campus) Student-selected research focus on design briefing aspects pertaining to their specific design approach Documented in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 11 LFE service users, staff 25 and parents complemented by visits to service users’ homes Site analysis
Mutuality
• •
Weekly and daily communications with the LFE group as well as FBEOT Design studio reviews and consultations with key LFE staff and other built environment practitioners and academics
Communication
• • •
Student design reports Agreed presentation format of drawings and models Public exhibition of student design project proposals
Reflection
• •
Student reflective journal and visual diary documentation of the project process Post-studio student reflections through online survey tool
Evaluation
• • • •
Student negotiated, criterion referenced assessment tasks Consideration of student projects by architects and non-architects LFE written feedback and evaluation of all student projects LFE selection of student projects for design
Student design insights and responses Students gained insights into designing for rural people with challenged abilities. Many of the most important insights related to service users’ daily patterns and interests, and were not explicit in the literature. Students attempted to respond specifically to these insights. Insights • Some service users are exceptionally house-proud; others choose to live happily amongst ‘clutter’; and still others have no interest in the arrangement of their personal possessions. Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
5
•
Many of the service users have hobbies such as arts and crafts, painting, computers and electronics, and interests such as pets, football, bowling and horse racing. Some practise their hobbies regularly whereas others do so only when interested or prompted.
Responses Students provided for increased storage spaces such as built-in cupboards and shelving so service users can personalise the storage or display of their possessions. Students also provided clearly designated places to undertake hobby activities or incorporated built-in arrangements in bedrooms, kitchens and lounge rooms. Insights • The majority of service users exercise control over their domestic privacy and security by keeping windows shut and curtains closed. Some service users liked to keep the TV, radio, music or washing machine on at all times. •
Some service users prefer to sleep in the place designed as a living room whereas others like the security and privacy of their bedroom.
Responses Students perceived that the service users’ homes lacked ventilation, were devoid of daylight or lighting (lights were not switched on during the daytime) and there was a lack of acoustical separation. In their design responses they therefore provided for cross-flow ventilation. To enhance lighting and meet BASIX performance, they included skylights, highlights and clerestory windows. Students considered window opening sizes and sill heights, as well as wall construction assemblies to achieve deep reveals for privacy and layered and direct views. To accommodate flexibility, students provided choice in room layout, orientation and activities using the kitchen and bathroom as core elements and introducing private courtyards and terraces as ‘outdoor rooms’. Insights • Service users like to keep the front door open so they can watch and hear passers-by without having to leave their homes. •
Each service user has a schedule of daily activities and a timetable of support staff on duty who are within easy distance.
Responses Students noted that existing homes were simply organised and efficiently arranged in a row of adjoining dwellings, all sharing a party wall with individual entries coming directly from the public pathway. This limited personal control, privacy and security but did provide opportunity for observation and surveillance. Students gave detailed design attention to transitions from public paths to the front doors of each home. Entry designs saw the use of seating, gardens, porticos and framing structures for orientation and personalisation. With a focus on spatial orientation, view lines and spatiality as well as affordable layouts, students attended to the service users’ need for autonomy and privacy as well as surveillance while inside their homes.
LFE and student feedback LFE Following a four-week public exhibition and feedback, the LFE community (service users, staff, parents and carers, board members) reflected on the student design proposals. They commented on how the student design projects revealed just how carefully the students had listened to the service users and interpreted their needs. They perceived that, collectively, students had gained the following insights from service users and their home experiences, in particular their needs for: •
privacy and clearly defined boundaries, with a preference for detached homes
•
considered spatial qualities to enhance effective domestic organisation as well as encouraging personalisation and homeliness
•
better connections from inside to outside, allowing air movement and natural lighting Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
6
•
opportunities to use walkways to provide sitting places for observing, resting and neighbourly socialising.
Students In their post-studio reflections 26, students commented on the challenging nature of the real-world project they had undertaken: ‘it was difficult as the brief was not clearly defined as the studio proceeded. However … this kind of situation is likely to happen in real practice’. They saw the challenges associated with uncertainty and mutuality as highly beneficial to them as emerging architects: This studio provided a different experience. One which addressed a real brief with real clients. The lessons learnt from such a studio, I believe, cannot be quantified in their value to students moving towards their later years of study and into the profession. Such lessons were related to collaboration and empathy, with students citing communication as key challenges. Many found that it was demanding to communicate their design schemes to a non-architectural audience while working across disciplines in a team setting to ensure the service users’ needs were fully considered. One student remarked that the greatest learning was related to the development of ‘communicative skills, verbally and visually, and understanding the needs of the service users with empathy’. A strong theme that emerged from student reflections related to the responsibility, ‘weight’ or gravity of producing a meaningful outcome for the service users of the LFE community: This design studio was able to narrow the gap between architect–user interaction and understanding. It was very useful and inspiring to be able to communicate closely with a community group. Instead of always designing in an idealistic manner, we are forced to design creatively to balance out between the ideal and the reality.… to work on an option which honestly attended to the issues we faced. This sense of responsibility meant that to the best of my ability I searched for a solution that was backed through research, and not just one I assumed would work. This additional layer of accountability pushed many of the students beyond their normal boundaries. Despite the project’s challenges, students commented on the sense of empowerment that stemmed from the commitment to mutuality and shared experience: ‘mutuality allowed students to actively participate in all areas of the decision making process’. Others noted the facilitated and supportive nature of the studio learning environment: The manner in which the studio was taken was very appropriate, there was guidance while we were able to self-direct our learning. The balance was very comfortable and we got to voice when we felt it wasn’t running as understood. Our voices were listened to and changes proactively made. In their reflections, many students considered the broader implications of their studio experience for other aspects of their architectural education. Considering their increased capability, a student described the learning outcome as preparing them for practice ‘in a way a theoretical course cannot’. Another student felt that the empathy the experience generated ‘could help us [as designers] to make more considered design decisions and provide more liveable environments’. Overall, students agreed that architectural education would benefit from: More integrated courses or experiences which encourage a multidisciplinary approach to design projects, so that Architecture students could understand and consider other areas of design for a more holistic and well-rounded design approach. Conclusion This essay reveals that learning through community engagement and service oriented projects can help built environment design students to apply practical reasoning and empathetic and collaborative modes of working. As the students themselves point out, these are likely to be important capabilities in their future practice as professional architects. If their learning in this project was limited only to this, it would still represent a notinsignificant social benefit. But the project’s outcomes also have broader implications. For example, Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
7
the students’ approach and insights into the needs of the service users in this specific project may well be applicable to other such contexts, and might usefully inform research and practice on interactions between designers and others. Most importantly, though, these students have shown their capacity to respond to Freire’s call for an active citizenship that enacts a ‘mutual recognition of humanity 27’ 28. The result is creative design decisions that enable quality of life and dignity for others. Acknowledgements In undertaking this project FBE recognises the contributions of the LFE community and UNSW students and staff: Ray, Sheralee, Julia, Paul, Gordon, Chris, Halina, Craig, Kevin, Debbie, Kim, Daniel, Frances, Dianne, Eileen, Herbie, Joy, Debbie, Gail, Rhonda, Noelene, Sally, Geraldine, Susuki, Jessica, Monica, Olivia, Matt, Taj, Hyunju, Jodi, Lorraine, Vinh, Carol, Michael, Lara, Amanda, June, Apeksha, Ann, Linda, Ben, Dijana, Mark and Richard. We also appreciate the editorial assistance of Dr Catherine Pratt.
1
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea-Bissau, New York: Seabury Press, 1978, cited in bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress, New York: Routledge, 1994, p.54. 2 Henry Sanoff (ed.), ‘Editorial’, Design Studies [special issue on participatory design], 28, 3 (2007): p.213. 3 Henry Sanoff (ed.), ‘Editorial’, Design Studies, p.213. 4 Ernest Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,1990. 5 In the scholarship of discovery, original research advances disciplinary knowledge. In the scholarship of teaching, knowledge is transformed through active, engaged and contextualised learning. The scholarship of application applies knowledge to issues of social consequence. The scholarship of integration synthesises cross-disciplinary ideas into new kinds of knowledge. 6 Rob Willis, ‘What do we mean by “community engagement”?’, paper presented at the Knowledge Transfer and Engagement Forum, Sydney, 15-16 June, 2006. URL http://www.aucea.net.au/cgi-bin/articles/display. pl/a:442/Knowledge_Transfer.html [accessed 27 September 2007]. 7 Bruce Judd, Eileen Baldry & Linda Corkery, ‘Connecting the dots: designers and social workers learning in community’, paper presented to ConnectED 2007, International Conference on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 9-12 July 2007. 8 Bruce Judd, Eileen Baldry and Linda Corkery, ‘Connecting the dots: designers and social workers learning in community’. 9 Rachel Luck, ‘Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations’, Design Studies, 28, 3 (2007): pp.217–242; Jeremy Till, cited in Luck, ‘Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations’; Ann Van Herzele, ‘Local knowledge in action’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 2 (2004): pp.197-212. 10 Melanie Walker, Higher Education Pedagogies, Berkshire: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, (2006): pp.91-92. 11 Melanie Walker, Higher Education Pedagogies, pp.91-92. 12 Richard Bailey (ed.), Teaching Values and Citizenship across the Curriculum, London: Kogan, 2000, cited in Rosie Parnell, ‘Knowledge, skills and arrogance: educating for collaborative practice’, Writings in Architectural Education [EAAE Prize 2001–2002], Copenhagen: Frome (2003): pp.57-71. 13 Sustained community design studio projects include those led by Associate Professor Bruce Judd in association with UNSW Social Work and the NSW Department of Housing and UNSW Redfern-Waterloo Community Development program. 14 FBEOT consolidates the FBE’s community engagement activities and builds on its interdisciplinary synergies for connecting to communities, generating learning and teaching opportunities through short-term and long-term communitybased projects, seeking research grants and attracting funding and sponsorship. 15 Lambing Flat Enterprises, Welcome to Lambing Flat Enterprises, LFE, Young, 2007, URL: http://www.lfe.org.au/ [accessed 27 September 2007]. 16 Lindsay Gething, ‘Sources of double disadvantage for people with disabilities living in remote and rural areas of New South Wales, Australia’, Disability & Society, 12, 4 (1991): pp.513-531. 17 These services include accommodation, training and support services, respite care and early childhood intervention programs. 18 We acknowledge the work of Richard Fitzhardinge in leading the 1979 studio, the 1979 FBE Architecture alumni involved, and in particular Mark Hitchcock (bhi Architects) who participated in the 2007 Design Studio. 19 LFE communication to the Dean, UNSW Faculty of the Built Environment. 20 The term ‘service users’ rather than ‘clients’ is used by LFE and similar organisations to describe people who choose to access their services. 21 For useful discussions of this perspective, see Kevin Paterson and Bill Hughes, ‘Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life’, Disability & Society, 14, 5 (1999): pp.597-610; Tim Blackman, Lynne Mitchell, Elizabeth Burton, Mike Jenks, Maria Parsons, Shibu Raman and Katie Williams, ‘The accessibility of public spaces for people with dementia: a new priority for the “open city”’, Disability & Society, 18, 3 (2003): pp.357-371; Christine Oldman, ‘Later life and the social model of disability: A comfortable partnership?’, Aging & Society, 22, 6 (2002): pp.791-806. 22 Rachel Luck, ‘Project briefing for accessible design’, Design Studies, 22, 3 (2001): pp.297-315. See also Rob Imrie, ‘Responding to the design needs of disabled people’, Journal of Urban Design, 5, 2 (2000): pp.199-219; Peter Hall and Rob Imrie, ‘Architectural practices and disabling design in the built environment’, Environment and Planning B; Planning and Design, 26,3 (1999): pp.409-425. Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
8
23
Rosie Parnell, ‘Knowledge, skills and arrogance; educating for collaborative practice’, Writings in Architectural Education [EAAE Prize 2001-2002], Copenhagen: Frome (2003): pp.61. 24 Selected research literature on aging and domesticity includes Lilliane Rioux, ‘The well being of aging people living in their own homes’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 2 (2005): pp.231-243; John Marsden,‘Older persons’ and family members’ perception of homeyness in assisted living’, Environment and Behaviour, 31, 1 (1999): pp.84-106; John Percival, ‘Domestic spaces: uses and meanings in the daily lives of older people’, Aging & Society, 22, 6 (2002): pp.729-749; Sarah Barnes, ‘The design of caring environments and the quality of life of older people’, Aging & Society, 22, 6 (2002): pp.775789; Judith Sixsmith, ‘The meaning of home: an exploratory study of environmental experience’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6 (1986): pp.281-298; Rob Imrie, ‘Disability,embodiment and the meaning of the home’, Housing Studies, 19, 5 (2004): pp.745-763; Ann Devlin and Allison Arneill, ‘ Health care environments and patient outcomes: a review of the literature’, Environment and Behaviour, 35, 5 (2003): pp.665-694; Disparity, Journal of the National Disability Services organisation (formerly ACROD) URL: http://www.nds.org.au/nsw/. 25 These interviews and home visits received FBE ethics approval and followed accepted ethics approval protocol. 26 . These reflections are students’ written responses to a set of evaluative questions. 27 . Paulo Freire, Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea-Bissau, cited in bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress, p.54.
Ann Quinlan, Linda Corkery, Ben Roche Australian School of Architecture and Design | Faculty of Built Environment | University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
