INTRODUCCIÓN: LA HIPÓTESIS DE LA CURVA DE KUZNETS AMBIENTAL

The author’s research method required the development of a detailed understanding of low energy – low carbon acute hospital design. The author reasoned he could do so by seeking to change the outcomes of conventional engineering practice through experimentation with the input values that are fundamental to building engineering physics. The author reasoned that to influence those values would require him to engage with the clinical users and through such an engagement to demonstrate how a new understanding of In-use could lead to the required input values. Robson (2011) refers to the work of Kurt Lewin, who viewed action research as a way of learning about organisations through trying to change them. He argues that practitioners are more likely to make better decisions and engage in more effective practices if they are active participants in the research. As the research objectives require the development of new practices as much as understanding how organisational redesign could influence engineering design the use of action research as a central element of the research plan would be eminently logical. The author’s proposed alignment of the research method with action research is neatly summarised by Robson:

1. The improvement of practice of some kind.

2. The improvement of understanding of a practice by its practitioners. 3. The improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place.

Referring to the last chapter setting out the research objectives, the reader should immediately recognise how the features of action research set out by Robson align well to those objectives.

Yet the risks inherent in action research are also well documented, and scholars, particularly in the human sciences, have documented these in some detail over many years. An early discourse titled: Three Dilemmas in Action Research

(Rapoport, 1970) identifies the three issues of ethics, goals and initiatives. The overriding risk is that resolution of these issues leads away from scientific resolution. In other words the sort of action that is not theoretically informed. Resolution of the goals can lead to idealistic research, lacking in relevance to practical pursuit. Rapoport argues that balancing of these three dilemmas (he refers to ‘good action’) is a means for addressing theses risks.

In terms of addressing the ethical dimension, the concern is how the researcher balances the duality role of the consultant with that of the researcher, particularly in regard to the relationship with the client. The ethical dimension arises where the commercial goals of the work being researched may conflict with the values of the researcher. The need to reconcile these within a value framework is one such means of addressing this potential risk. Issues of confidentiality and protection are also of concern in that what maybe appropriate to share in research may not be appropriate in a commercial context. Obtaining ethical approval for published work is clearly one means of resolving this potential dilemma. However, even this may not be sufficient. Rapoport also suggests that a degree of detachment is required in action research, such that the researcher remains objective and not compromised by commercial considerations that could compromise the research and the attainment of the research objectives.

It is the compromising of research objectives (goals) where Rapoport explains that the researcher has to be sensitive to gather information for purposes unrelated to the concerns of the organisation and so compromise the attainment of the holistic

research objectives of both the organisation and the research. He suggests that the researcher and the client need to make mutual goals as explicit as possible.

The dilemma of initiatives is the third area of concern identified by Rapoport. Succinctly explained, the concern is that initiatives identified in the research, whilst perceived to be important to the researcher may not be so for the client. The need for reconciliation between competing objectives is the issue that is of concern. Could the clients demands effectively compromise the research? However, so too may the researchers own perceptions unwittingly compromise the potential learning experience of the organisation. Rapoport cites a phenomenon referred to as ‘defensive reaction’, where those involved in change reject the proposed change or should the researcher leave the decision as the problem definition and resolution to the client he may ‘slight the practical and scientific goals of the study’.

In recent years more contemporary action researchers such as Somekh (2006) who works in the field of educational research, and Mejia et al (2007) who investigated action research associated with collaborative systems in engineering, have discussed these challenges and have developed techniques to address them. The latter discuss ‘cyclical practices’ and ‘reflective practices’ that would address competing objectives such as outlined by Rapoport. They observe the value of bring in a team together in reflective practice such that joint understanding and potential conflicts of interest can be reconciled. Clearly the research design must ensure that these concerns are addressed.

Yet there are also philosophical considerations too concerning the use of action research. It is now appropriate to discuss these in the context of the author’s philosophical position as much as how such a position might impact the action research design.

4.1.2 - Introduction to authors research philosophy

The foundation for the research design is the author’s philosophical belief, which is summarised in Figure 31 over page. It is here where the conceptual divide between the built asset as an assembly of systems founded in applied science, as distinct from the built asset as a place for people to work, and founded in social science, is illustrated.

Figure 31 - The author's adaptation of Vitruvian Man

In borrowing from Leonardo da Vinci who conceptualised this divide in his famous rendering of Vitruvian Man, the author is attempting to place the research in the context that Vitruvius sought to reconcile – the relationship between man of the earth (physical) and man of the universe (spirit). It has been described in these terms35:

“Leonardo envisaged the great picture chart of the human body he had produced through his anatomical drawings and Vitruvian Man as a cosmografia del minor mondo (“cosmography of the microcosm”). He believed the workings of the human body to be an analogy, in microcosm, for the workings of the universe. Leonardo wrote: “Man has been called by the ancients a lesser world, and indeed the name is well applied; because, as man is composed of earth, water, air, and fire…this body of the earth is similar.”

In Vitruvian Man it can bee seen that Leonardo has articulated the oneness of man in both the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘physical’. He has demonstrated this through the describing of man both within the circle (the cosmos) and the square (the earth). In this

35

Please see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/336408/Leonardo-da-

oneness the author also sees the potential for reconciliation between the constructivist (social and sciences) and the positivist (applied sciences). As indicated in the opening paragraph to this chapter, the author considers the reconciliation as expressed in Real World research. Vischer (2008) argues in a similar vein. Whilst Vischer’s argument for these two perspectives is born out of the need to establish a user centred theory for the built environment, the issues that Vischer discusses are those that challenge the author; described to use Vischer’s words: as ‘theoretical polarities’.

“As a result, user-centred theories have tended to be located somewhere along a continuum ranging between a deterministic definition of the environment–behaviour relationship, and one that minimizes the impact of the built environment on users.”

The departure of the author’s work from that of the analysis by Vischer is that the author’s research is concerned with understanding the consequences of In-Use (right hand side of the diagram) on the design of the building asset (left hand side of the diagram), whereas Vischer is concerned with the behavioural impact of In-use. It follows that the research would be concerned with understanding how In-Use practices and methods (through organisational redesign for example) could be used to explicitly shape the engineering design inputs to accurately forecast In-Use low energy and associated low carbon performance. This is not to suggest that there is no precedent that organisational redesign has not been used to inform the engineering design inputs, but that the author has found no evidence that has been done to explicitly achieve the outcomes underlined above.

The approach outlined above also aligns well with the author’s positivist ontological position in that he is concerned with ‘conceptions of reality’ (Dainty, 2008) and how to influence methods and indeed the science of the engineering design process. It for this reason that the author has chosen to investigate his proposition, focusing on facts and fundamental laws. In contrast, that aspect of In-Use that would drive the design in response to the constructivist epistemological perspectives learnt from the experience of In-Use and expressed in organisational redesign and policy is not within the conceptual scope of this Thesis.

The foregoing discussion succinctly outlines the author’s position so far as the overall approach to the research is concerned. But in the action research design how

would this be impacted by the author’s philosophical position? In other words what is the author’s research position in relation to the researched – notably that of clinical users? From an epistemological perspective, could not the reality of the users be so subjective that it would cause a conflict situation in the case study? The author will demonstrate that knowledge can be mediated with the users, and particularly that knowledge which needs to be actionable for the purposes of eliciting ‘appropriate data’ for the two methods forming two stages of the case study. It is now necessary to discuss the epistemology of In-use knowledge.