Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Robertson, Frances; Emmitt, S
Publisher: Aybil
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Abstract. In this paper we explore the implications of pluralist curricula for architectural technology. This includes the potential effects on strengthening the identity of the architectural technology profession and the academic development of the discipline. This latter relies, arguably, on research being explicit in CIAT’s eight mandatory threshold standards. This work concentrates on one of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologist’s (CIATS’s) key subjects; 'design', defined as detail design for the architectural technologist. In postulating a philosophy of architectural technology epistemology with a focus on detail design, the pedagogy of architectural detailing in practice and academia is investigated: the associated roles of creativity and conditioning are explored. The interrelationship between conceptual design and construction processes in practice is outlined, identifying the role of the detail design specialist (architectural technologist) in the management of design and production information. Thus is identified the future architectural technologists’ specialisation of nuclear architecture: the total quality construction created by quality of thinking which permeates from and to detail design for assembly/disassembly and production within a collaboratively mechanised AEC team. A theory of nuclear architecture and an associated approach to detail design pedagogy are postulated, aiming to promote a revised perception of the definition of design for the architectural technologist. How this theory can be applied to the creation of a paradigmatic student project, themed on designing for disassembly as a key future focus of ‘Healthy Building’ design is introduced for future exploration. This future research into detail design, the authors propose, should be predicated on the appropriate methodology related to the epistemology of a design-based area of the architectural technology discipline. The roles of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) in the evaluation and subsequent dissemination of this detail design pedagogy, with the aim of strengthening the architectural technology discipline are emphasised. \ud Keywords: Philosophy of architectural technology epistemology; Pedagogy of architectural detailing; Theory of nuclear architecture; Dissemination of detail design pedagogy; Strengthening the architectural technology discipline
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • BARRETT, N., 2011. The rise of a profession within a profession: the development of the architectural technology discipline within the profession of architecture., Robert Gordon University.
    • BOUD, D. and BREW, A., 2013. Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice: implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), pp. 208-221.
    • BREW, A. and BOUD, D., 1995. Teaching and Research: Establishing the Vital Link with Learning. Higher Education, 29(3), pp. 261-273.
    • CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS, 2015. Guidance for Mapping QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for Architectural Technology. London: CIAT.
    • CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS, 2014. Professional Standards Framework for Chartered Membership. London: CIAT.
    • DEARING, R. and NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HIGHER EDUCATION, 1997. Higher education in the learning society: Summary report. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.
    • DREYFUS, H.L., 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    • EMMITT, S., 2006. Investigating the Synergy between Teaching and Research in a Teachingled University: The Case of an Architectural Technology Undergraduate Programme. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2(1), pp. 61.
    • EMMITT, S., 2002. Architectural technology. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
    • EMMITT, S., 1999. Architectural management in practice: a competitive approach. Harlow: Longman.
    • EMMITT, S. and MYILIBRARY, 2012. Architectural technology. Chichester: WileyBlackwell.
    • EMMITT, S., OLIE, J. and SCHMID, P., 2004. Principles of Architectural Detailing. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
    • HEIDEGGER, M., 1996. Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. SUNY Press.
    • NEUMANN, R., 1996. Researching the teaching-research nexus: A critical review. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 40(1), pp. 5-18.
    • QAA, 2014. Subject Benchmark Statement: Architectural Technology. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
    • QAA, 2007. Subject Benchmark Statement: Architectrual Technology. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
    • RIBA, 2014-last update, RIBA Plan of Work 2013 [Homepage of RIBA], [Online]. Available: http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/ [10/08, 2015].
    • SCHEIN, E.H. and KOMMERS, D.W., 1972. Professional Education: Some New Directions.
    • SCḦN, D.,A., 1983. The Reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. BasicBooks.
    • SIMON, H.A., 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd edition edn. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    • SNODGRASS, ADRIAN AND RICHARD COYNE, 1997. Is Designing Hermeneutical? Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of Architecture, The University of Sydney, Vol. 1(Issue 1), pp. 65-97.
    • SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ASSOCIATED TECHNICIANS, 1984. Architectural Technology: The Constructive Link. London: SAAT.
    • THOMPSON, W., 2013. Chapter 2: The Morphological Construct. In: S. EMMITT, ed, Architectural Technology Research and Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 47--63.
    • WIENAND, N., 2013. Chapter 1: Theory and Architectural Technology. In: S. EMMITT, ed, Architectural Technology Research and Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 1--19.
    • WITTGENSTEIN, L., 1968. Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.
    • YORKE, M., 2001. Assessment issues arising from Subject Benchmarking Statements. Working Paper 2 edn. Liverpool John Moores University: Centre for Higher Education and Development.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok