ARCHITECTURE AS METAPHOR FOR QUALITATIVE

RESEARCH
David A. Techau

University of Tasmania

Abstract:
This purpose of this essay is to develop a conceptual framework for
understanding the foundational principles attached to qualitative research.
Drawing upon the groundbreaking work of Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997)
and Scarduzio (et al. 2011), I join them in proposing that architecture provides a
revealing metaphor in the way it structures the creative design and building
process while offering a clear blueprint for the productive conduct of qualitative
research.

Science and art are curiously connected. Each inspires the other; together they
describe
human experience. Both are shaped by common principle: the
human mind seeks order
and is only satisfied as it wrests design from
complexity or apparent chaos.
Phillips, Fillers, and Cohen (1979, p. 230)

Introduction
For many years, I have been drawn to the power of architecture to shape
peoples lives and behaviour. My training as an architect gave me the
skills necessary to merge the art of design with the science of engineering
to create places for human habitation. It also introduced me to new
methods of architectural programming that sought to capture the needs of
building users through a rigorous analysis of their functional and spatial
requirements. Further, a rare elective, an undergraduate course in
environment psychology, furnished me with an abiding curiosity about how
environment and behaviour interact to affect wellbeing, ultimately leading
to an advanced degree in the subject. Throughout my professional life and
career, I have sought out those forms of inquiry that illuminate how the
salutary aspects of human experience can be enriched through
architecture. The blending of these two disciplines, art and science, offers
new insight from which to view reality.

In this essay, my aim is to clearly delineate the ontological,

epistemological, and axiological framework of my research as a way of
fleshing out my methodology and research strategy and to identify
suitable methods to investigate my research topic: occupant wellbeing in
green office buildings. Building upon the groundwork of LawrenceLightfoot and Davis (1997), and their art and science of portraiture; and
the architectural blueprint metaphor introduced recently by Scarduzio,
Giannini & Geist-Martin (2011). I share the view that architecture is an
ideal metaphor for the conduct of qualitative research. The essence of
metaphor, wrote Lakoff and Johnson, is understanding and experiencing
one kind of thing in terms of another (1980, p. 5).
In their classic book, Metaphors We Live By, they express it this way:
It is as though the ability to comprehend experience through
metaphor were a sense , like seeing , touching or hearing, with metaphors
providing the only way to perceive and experience much of the world.
Metaphor is as much part of our
functioning as our sense of touch, and
as precious (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 239)
Through the use of the architectural metaphor, I hope to define the
contours of my own research terrain in a way that will ultimately help me
facilitate the process and shape the final product of my work.
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE:
Laying out the topography of my research site and setting, it is useful to
briefly examine the two dominant paradigms in social science research.
Taking my lead from a schematic offered by Morgan and Smirich (1980),
which suggests that all approaches to contemporary social science are
based on interrelated sets of assumptions regarding human nature,
ontology and epistemolology (p. 491). The diagram below lightly
llustrates their subjective-objective continuum along which the nature of
research shifts and what constitutes reality and knowledge changes.
Subjectivist
Objectivist

approach to
approach to
Social Science
Social Science

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Constructivist
Positivist
Qualitative
Quantitative
Table 1: The Subjective-Objective Continuum (after Morgan and Smircich, 1980, p.
491)

As we proceed from right to left along the subjective-objective continuum

there is a change in epistemology from a conception of the world as a
machine, or closed system, to a conception of the world as an organism,
an open system (p. 492). The grounds for knowledge at each end of this
spectrum are different because the fundamental conceptions of social
reality (the ontology) to which the proponents of each position subscribe
are poles apart (p. 493).
Lakoff and Johnson introduced experientialism as a third way to
overcome what they called the limitations of the objectivist and
subjectivist myths (1980, p. 185).
The experientialist myth takes the perspective of people being a part of
their environment, not separate from it. It views the interaction with the
environment as
involving mutual change. You cannot function within the
environment without
changing it or being changed by it (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980, pp. 229-230)

Experientialist

S
ubjectivist
Objectivist
Table 2: The Experientialist Myth as a third way to the Subjectivist and Objectivist
Myths

Positioning my research methodolgy into this experientialist realm, begins

to suggest that the following assumptions may underpin my research:
Core Ontological Assumption
Reality as a projection of the human brain/mind through the senses

Basic Epistemological Stance

Knowledge rests within an understanding of human actions and behaviour
Key Axiological Position
The values and lived experience (Erlebnis) of the researcher cannot be
separated from

the research process

Research Methods
The affective exploration of thoughts, feelings, emotions, and behaviours

These core assumptions will serve as a template for my research .

Metaphorically, these could be the foundation stones of my research
structure. A strong case can be made that science of all kinds is primarily

metaphorical. It is through the use of metaphor that scientists seek to

create knowledge about the world (Morgan & Smircich, 1980, p. 493). In
the following analysis, I will use the architectural blueprint metaphor
developed by Scarduzio (et al. 2011) to help identify some of the key
design principles relevant to qualitative research process.
THE BLUEPRINT:
An architectural blueprint is a plan, a draft, a design that tentatively
lays out what
we want to construct the first version to be filled out
and polished later.
(Greenberg & Howe, 1913).

Scarduzio, Giannini, and Geist-Martin (2011) introduced the architectural

blueprint as a metaphor to help researchers to construct a research
position in the field. It can be viewed as a tool to help guide the
researcher through the interwoven and iterative steps of designing,
conducting and documenting research. It also provides images of what the
final product could be (their italics, p.449).
They also propose that designing an ethnographic research project is
similar to the process of drafting a building by citing Greenberg & Howes
(1913) classic text Architectural Drafting, which describes it as an
aggregation of connected units; systems and coherency must therefore
prevail in its representation where all elements should be carefully studied
by themselves and in relation to one another (as cited in Scarduzio et al.
2011, p. 449).
Architects often reconceptualize blueprints by drawing on them, erasing,
crossing out, and adding to the original design (Scarduzio et al., 2011, p.
449). These become the working drawings, the record of the essential
construction details required to keep a building from falling, blowing, or
burning down.
Scale

Throughout the ages, architects and builders have used scale to relate the
dimensions of the human body to the building of exterior and interior
spaces. The golden mean was used mathematically to create an
architecture that was proportionately related to natural systems and
forms. Scale, as used here, also refers to the spatial and temporal
dimensions used by researchers in their studies of human social behavior.
Scale is fundamental to the identification of patterns and their
explanation (Flick, 1998, p. 12). In his discussion of the hidden agenda
of modernity Toulmin (1990) uses the building metaphor to express the
need to adjust the scale of social science research in response to local
conditions and context.
Like building on a human scale, our intellectual and social
procedures will do
what we need in the years ahead, only of we take
care to avoid irrelevant and excessive stability and keep them operating
in ways that are adaptable to
unforeseen or even unforeseeable
situations and functions (Toulmin, 1990, as
cited in Flick, 1998, pp.12-13)
Karl Weick (1984) believes that the massive scale on which social
problems are conceived precludes innovative action. To recast larger
problems into smaller, less arousing problems, people can identify a
series of controllable opportunities of modest size that produce visible
results and that can be gathered into synoptic solutions (Weick, 1984, p.
40). Scale, as used in drafting an architural blueprint for example, is
absolutely critical to attempts to generalize from one level of scale to
another.
Context
Architecture is created in context. When architects speak of context, they
often refer to it as the place or site where a building will be built and
various human activities will be accommodated. In this mileau, the social
and physical site becomes the framework for placing people and action in
time and space and as a resource for understanding what they say and do
(Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 61). Citing Elliot Michlers
influential essay titled, Meaning in Context: Is There Any Other Kind? in
which he posed a rhetorical question: how can we understand human

experience and behaviour unless we see it evolve out of its natural

setting?(Michler, 1979). He went on to argue:
to create ephemeral isolated settings for the study of human
science is to risk misinterpretations of peoples meanings, perspectives,
competencies, and
actions, and to risk inflicting the researchers lens
and standards on the subjects
reality (Mischler, 1979, as cited in
Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis, 1997, p. 42).

Much of human experience is framed and shaped by the physical

environments in which we live, work, and play. Lawerence-Lightfoot and
Davis (1997) view the physical setting as a dynamic framework
recognizing that it is changing and evolving, shaping and being shaped by
the people who inhabit it. Context to them is not only a frame for
purposeful and productive action, but also a rich resource for the
interpretation of peoples thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (p. 41). In
sketching the research context, the portraitist must:
capture the details of the physical setting by observing and
recording the ways
in which people shape, disturb, and transform the
environments in which they live and work (p. 59).
The context is rich with cues for investigating human behaviour in its
physical and social setting.
Precedent
Similar to the modern era of architecture, qualitative research can be
placed in its historical context. Denzin and Lincoln (1994a, pp. 6-11) refer
to five moments of qualitative research as follows:
Traditional Period (roughly 1900-1945)
Modernist Phase (1945 to the 1970s)
Blurred Genres (until the mid 1980s_
Crisis of Representation (since the mid 1980s)
Fifth Moment (the 1990s and beyond)
(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994a, as cited in Flick, 1998, p. 10,
Table 1.1)

Over the years, a variety of methods have emerged different in their

approach to, and understanding of, the object under study. In general,
says Flick (1998), qualitative research is concerned with constructions of
reality its own constructions and in particular those constructions it
meets in the field or in the people it studies (p. 10). Similarly, the
architect conceptualizes, her or his, construction of reality through a
building process utilizing fundamental design principles that have evolved
over time.
PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN
The following design principles provide a research framework that is both
rigorous and imaginative. Scarduzio (et al. 2011), uses the architectural
blueprint metaphor to create a methodological infrastructure that can help
researchers make sense of the seemingly endless options at their disposal.
They offfer guidelines that inspire ideas about how researchers might
proceed with their own work. These principles of design are not set in
stone, but instead, offer intersecting columns and beams that reinforce
and hold up the finished creations (Scarduzio et al., 2011, p. 450).

Table 3: Building as Metaphor: The Intersection of Columns and Beams

(Scarduzio et al., 2011)

At the heart of the blueprint are seven columnsand interwoven among

this colannade are three conceptual beams that offer balance and
symmetry in both the process and the product (p. 450). The building as
metaphor (as depicted in Table 3) represents those seven columns and
three beams offering researchers the means to structure and design their
qualitative research project across mutliple horizontal and vertical
dimensions.
8

Conception
Architects analyze building programs and develop design concepts as the
means for realizing their vision of the finished building. Goetz and
LeCompte (1984) speak of this process as one of puzzle building, an
iterative process of assembling the pieces into a coherent pattern within
the frame(cited in Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis, 1997, p.244). Similar
to architects who assemble pieces of building program from which design
concepts begin to reveal themselves, researchers establish themes within
which they sort data into relevant categories until a portrayal of complex
phenomena begins to emerge (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984, as cited in
Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis, 1997, p.245). In their own words:
The process is analogous to assembling a jigsaw puzzle. The edge
pieces are located first to provide a frame of reference. Next, the puzzle
worker places the
assembled parts in their general location within
the frame, and finally, locates
and adds the connecting pieces until
no holes remain (Goetz and LeCompte,,1984,
as cited in LawrenceLightfoot and Davis, 1997, pp. 243-244).

Puzzle building, as Goetz and LeCompte describe it, is ultimately related

to the development of a credible and believable story (p. 243). Maxwell
speaks of it as the correctness or credibility of description by emphasizing
the researchers goal of finding corroboration among the pieces of the
puzzle (Maxwell, 1996, p. 240).
The story holds up, the pieces fit, it makes sense, the facts are consistent
(Maxwell, 1996, cited in Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p.
241).

Structure
Concepts express the overarching vision of the design, while the structure
creates a scaffold for the narrative that gives the piece a frame, stability,
and an organization (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 253). Lodge
(1992) used an architectural metaphor when he wrote :

the structure of a narrative is like a framework of girders that holds

up a modern
high-rise building: you cant see it, but it determines the
edifices shape and
character (Lodge, 1992 as cited in Lawrence-Lightfoot
& Davis, 1997, p. 253)

Similar to architecture, the structure that each researcher crafts should be

a harmonious combination of utility and beauty. Utility is defined as the
function, or purpose of a building and beauty, is an elusive principle, but
its manifestations are apparent and easily recognized (Scott, 1914 pp. 1617). Then we can begin to think of structure as the columns and beams
needed to provide a frame to support the narrative,
Form
We can think of form as a kind of skin or curtain wall that encloses
space and expresses the essential nature of the architecture. Madden
(1980) refers to form as a kind of mysterious phenomenon that captures
emotion and movement and refers to the crucial interaction of form and
structure working together to generate energy, life, emotion, and the
shape of meaning (Madden, 1980, as cited in Lawrence-Lightfoot and
Davis ,1997, p. 254). Form, according to Lawrence-Lightfoot, is the
texture of intellect, emotion, and aesthetics that supports, illuminates, and
animates the structural elements,it is the flesh on the bones of a piece
(p.254).
Coherence
Like an architect, the researcher can begin to shape the finished product
by developing coherence in the narrative. Coherence, as described by
Lawerence-Lightfoot and Davis, includes the framing and sequencing of
events, the building up of experiences, emotions and behaviours, and the
articulation of a clear and consistent voice and perspective (p. 256).
Speaking of creating unity through the narrative, Madden (1980) writes,
the repetition of motifs, situations, and character relationships
contribute to the effect of unity In all novels, some principle of
integration is at work, striving for structural, thematic, symbolic, spatial,
temporal unity (Madden, 1980 as cited in Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis,
10

1997, p. 256)

With unity research gains credibility. The researcher will experience a

finished product that holds together and makes sense. Much like the
masterwork of an architect, when these themes resonate together
throughout the project, the work achieves authenticity (LawrenceLightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 260). When all of these forces metaphorical,
empirical and aesthetic are aligned, the work will be deeply grounded in
place and time.
Methodological Stance: The Search for Goodness
My research rests firmly on a positive psychological foundation and resists
the preoccupation of many social scientists to focus their investigations on
the pathology and disease rather than health and resilience (p. 8).
Rather than looking for whats wrong in a research setting, my focus is on
looking for whats right or whats working. In the words of LawrenceLightfoot and Davis (1997):
The researcher who asks first what is good here? is likely to absorb
a very
different reality than one who is on a mission to discover the
sources of failure. (p. 9)
According to Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, there is a need to shift our
research stance: from focus on weakness to pursuit of strength, the
preoccupation with disease to concern for health and wellbeing, from
inquiry into dysfunction to examination of productivity (p.8). By doing
so, it will give researchers an opportunity to capture evidence of goodness
and wellbeing in their research setting.
Research Methods
Framed by the traditions of the phenomenology and sharing many of the
techniques of ethnography, my research methods are directly linked to my
methodological stance and this conceptual research framework. In an
effort to capture aesthetic, empirical, and metaphorical dimensions, I am
utilizing the following research instruments:
11

Semi-focused Interviews (open-ended, representative sample)

Walkabout Interviews (reflexive actions in situ)
Observational Recordings (notes, drawings, sketches)
Document Analysis (building floor plans, space programs, and
photographs)
Survey & Questionnaire (occupant wellbeing)

Triangulation is used in architecture to create rigidity in the structural

frame. By the same token, researchers use triangulation to create validity
by employing various strategies in the search for convergence. In this
sense, triangulation is used not only to examine the same phenomena
from multiple perspectives, but also to enrich our understanding by
allowing for new or deeper dimensions to emerge (Lawrence-Lightfoot &
Davis, 1997, p. 204)
Conclusions
The architectural blueprint metaphor and these principles of design
illuminate a qualitative research process that is timeless and cyclical from
the beginning of the project until it is finished. Metaphors express a long
arc of human experience and can create new understandings and even,
new realities. From the experientialist perspective, truth and
understanding emerge from interaction with the environment and other
people. Experientialism provides a fresh perspective from which to view
the most important areas of lived experience (erlebnis) of our time. The
search for goodness and and the focus on wellbeing enriches this research
experience. The aesthetic whole is created at the intersection of art and
science through a balanced composition of these key architectural
elements.
The late, and relatively unknown American poet, Ronald Johnson (19351998) worked on an epic poem over the course of twenty years built
entirely around an architectural metaphor. Johnson began ARK in 1970
and completed the final section on New Years Eve, 1990. The poem was
developed in three parts: The Foundations, The Spires, and, The Ramparts

12

(Johnson, 1996). Let me conclude with this stanza from ARK 75, ARCHES
IX:
we exist neither for one thing
or for the other
but to prepare the way, (p. 235)

Placed at the cornerstone, this final metaphor will provide the foundation
upon which this research thesis will emerge and reveal itself.

REFERENCES:
Flick, Uwe. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design
in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.
Greenberg, A. , & Howe, C. B. (1913). Architectural Drafting. New York:
Wiley.
Johnson, R. (1996). ARK. Chicago: Flood Editions.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. . (1997). The Art and Science of
Portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lodge, D. (1992). The art of fiction. Hammondsworth, England: Penguin
Books.
Madden, D. . (1980). A primer of the novel for readers and writers.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Maxwell, J. A. . (1996). Qualitative research design: an interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13

Michler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in Context; Is there any other kind? Harvard

Educational Review, 49, 1-19.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The Case for Qualitative Research. The
Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491-500.
Phillips, G. N., Fillers, J. P., & Cohen, C. (1979). Motions of Tropomyosin:
Crystal as Metaphor. Journal of the Biophysical Society, 485-500.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: a
primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.
Scarduzio, J. A., Giannini, G. A., & Geist-Martin, P. (2011). Creating an
Architectural Blueprint: Principles of Design for Ethnographic
Research. Symbolic Interaction, 34(4), 447-470.
Scott, G. . (1914 ). The Architecture of Humanism. New York: W.W. Norton.
Toulmin, S. . (1990). Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New
York: Free Press.
Weick, K. (1984). Small Wins: redefining the scale of social problems.
American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.

Minds inhabit environments which act on them and on

which they in turn react.
William James (1898)

14