The built environment is an established discipline and it is claimed has been the subject of increasing research focus since the 1970s. (Griffiths, 2004) defines the Built Environment as a “range of practice-orientated subjects concerned with the design, development and management of buildings, spaces and places”.
An apparent issue for researchers entering into the field of research in the built environment is that the built environment covers a large subject area, with participatory professionals originating from a wide variation of backgrounds. These can include arts and humanities, natural sciences, social sciences or mathematical backgrounds. Each background appears to possess contrasting epistemological origins and beliefs. Temple (2004) has referred to a problem in the built environment of the ‘silo’ approach to knowledge production due to how disciplines are educated. They believe that this occurs where early specialisms and associated knowledge production are aligned with particular beliefs. The author continues “architects historically align themselves with the fine arts; in contrast quantity surveyors are entrenched in trying to master the art of certainty in costs and measurement” (Temple, 2004, p11).
4.3.1 The Built Environment Knowledge Base
Chynoweth, (2009) extensively discusses a model originated by Biglan (1973) which displays the apparent diversity of disciplines employed in the Built Environment by way of a model. The model plots the diversity of professions with respect of whether they are pure or applied or hard or soft subjects. Chynoweth (2009) describes pure knowledge as knowledge based purely on theory whilst applied knowledge involves the application of theoretical knowledge in a particular practical context. (Boyer, 1990) describes this distinction as the scholarship of discovery, as opposed to the scholarship of application.
Figure 16: Biglan Disciplinary Model.
Source. Chynoweth, 2009.
The matrix also describes a continuum from hard to soft subjects where a hard subject is described as paradigmatic such as engineering, to soft subjects which are not paradigmatic encompassing subjects, such as law. Following Biglans’ empirical findings each discipline was then plotted on the matrix to determine their position on the pure, applied, hard or soft matrix.
Figure 17: The Built Environment Knowledge Base.
Chynoweth (2009) has refined this model shown in figure 17 with relevance to the built environment knowledge base highlighting the core subject disciplines as Economics, Law, Management, Technology, and Design. These models are effective in displaying the apparent wide diversity of academic and professional practices involved in the field. Chynoweth’s adaptation of the Biglan model to describe the built environment knowledge base is relevant as it highlights the wide range of professional practices originating from applied academic subjects. This provides the researcher with an insight into potential complexities involved when entering research in the field, either in an academic or a professional capacity.
The research indicates that the core subject disciplines within the research subject of urban heritage regeneration should potentially be widened from Chynoweth interpretation of the Biglan model, to include the political knowledge base. The influence of the political discipline appears to be significant in relation to the governance of urban heritage regeneration. The proposed revision to the knowledge base of the research subject area has implications for the selection of an appropriate research methodology. Subsequently, the selection of a research methodology should be suited to social, arts and humanities, applied and natural science such as the mixed methods research.
Figure 18: The Built Environment Urban Heritage Regeneration Knowledge Base
4.3.2 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
An element of knowledge production pertinent to the built environment is the concept of explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge has been defined as knowledge derived from a formal source such as a book or class-room teaching, knowledge that is academic. However tacit knowledge has been described by Nonaka et al (2000, p7) as “knowledge based on the experiences of human individual, expressed in actions in the form of evaluation, attitudes, points of view, commitments and motivation”. The issue with tacit knowledge is highlighted by (Smith, 2003, n.p.), who cites the work of Michael Polanyi an academic in social science, who states “tacit knowing is such a subjective and elusive awareness of the individual, that it cannot be articulated into words.”
Tacit knowledge looks to plays an important role in the built environment. Evidence suggests an element of competitiveness within urban regeneration given as it appears that it can provide financial returns when completed successfully. For this reason practitioners are reluctant to share tacit knowledge for fear of losing competitive edge (Havard, 2008). However the researcher is an advocate of the codification of tacit knowledge. By engaging in this process, the researcher believes, could contribute to a wider awareness and understanding of the subject area and codification of knowledge can add to the existing body of knowledge of research in this field.
Pathirage (2010) has undertaken considerable work in understanding if and how tacit knowledge can be extracted into explicit knowledge suggesting that tacit knowledge can be codified into subcomponents of explicit and tacit knowledge. Subsequently certain elements of tacit knowledge, when codified, can indeed be extracted into explicit knowledge. The research enters into the field of the subject area to collect implicit knowledge that is then codified into explicit knowledge.
4.3.3 Investigating the Dominant Research Paradigm in the research field of Urban Regeneration
A clear distinction, which defines the adoption of methodological assumption into relation to research, appears to be what research paradigm the researcher adopts. A paradigm has been described as an established academic approach in a specific
discipline in which academics use a common terminology, common theories based on agreed assumptions (Grix, 2004).
The researcher considered it relevant to consider if a dominant research paradigm was emerging in the field. In order to complete this task the researcher undertook research into relevant peer reviewed academic journal, the Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal (2004-2012). The scope of the journal encompasses physical regeneration, economic development and community renewal. It provides a peer-reviewed forum for the publication of articles, briefings, discussion, applied research, case studies, expert comment and analysis on the key issues affecting the regeneration and renewal of towns and cities.
It is considered that the journal is highly relevant to the research topic where ten volumes have been produced, with journals published on a quarterly basis. The study involved a review of papers published in volumes produced during the period from 2010 to 2016 by academics and practising professionals from a domestic and international perspective covering a wide range of regeneration issues. The limitations of this approach is that analysis of one journal may not provide a broader view and understanding of the subject area. This approach also discounts other sources of research material that are available such as other journals, trade press, web articles and non-published articles. Nonetheless, the journal is highly regarded and is relevant to the subject area.
The evidence suggests that contributors favoured qualitative research methodology and the use of empirical case studies to highlight their research findings. The emphasis on post positivist interpretative and qualitative methodologies underlined a desire to understand the apparent complex issues of regeneration. In addition, authors often personalised their findings by reporting on case studies projects that they have participated in. This appears to indicate an on-going process of knowledge transfer from tacit to explicit knowledge in the field. A conclusion following completion of the review is that the dominant research paradigm in the field of urban regeneration can be described as of an interpretative and qualitative nature.
There is evidence of the adoption of an increasingly expressive approach in more recent theses and journal articles. This is due to the adoption of more contemporary
qualitative research methods such as a combination of case studies, semi structured interviews combined with documentary analysis. There is also evidence of researchers continuing to push boundaries in research in this field by employing mixed methods. It appears that this approach may present solutions to the challenges of completing research in this field.