毕业论文外文翻译-将内部空间通过设计研究,丰富主观经验.docx

《毕业论文外文翻译-将内部空间通过设计研究,丰富主观经验.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《毕业论文外文翻译-将内部空间通过设计研究,丰富主观经验.docx（20页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、本 科 生 毕 业 设 计（论文）外文翻译（ 2015届）题 目 海棠公寓现代空间设计 学生姓名 学号 专业班级 室内与家具设计 111 系 名 称 园林艺术系 指导教师 2014年 12 月 22 日 Transforming Interior Spaces: Enriching Subjective Experiences Through Design ResearchTiiu PoldmaSchool of Industrial Design, University of MontrealC.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, Queb

2、ec H3T 1B9, CANADAAbstractThis article explores tacit knowledge of lived experience and how this form of knowledge relates to design research. It investigates how interior designers interpret user lived experiences when creating designed environments. The article argues that user experience is the b

3、asis of a form of knowledge that is useful for designers. The theoretical framework proposed in the article examines the nature of user experience and how it can be utilized in the design process. The study of lived experiences is contextualized within aesthetic, subjective, and functional aspects o

4、f the interior design process, which requires users to express their meanings and needs. A case study is described to illustrate the various stages of this process.Keywords:design research; experiential knowledge; tacit knowledge; dynamic process; pragmatic philosophy; interior spaces1. Introduction

5、In our everyday lives, we live in spaces that are active, changing, and dynamic. When designers create interior spatial designs for various types of uses and experiences, they consider both the aesthetic qualities of a space and how people experience interactions and sensations within the spaces. Ho

6、wever, peoples experiences are subjective. These are experiences people have in the moment of living, both consciously and unconsciously, in interaction with the space and others in the space. This involves a form of knowing that is “implicit, naturalistic, ecological cognition of everyday existence

7、” as opposed to “deliberate, formal, thinking and knowledge” (Storkerson, 2010, Section 1, para. 2). This article explores these implicit forms of knowing and considers what design possibilities may emerge from them. Documenting these forms of knowing requires an understanding of how designs reflect

8、 aesthetic and functional ends while taking into account the direct experiences users have (Poldma & Thompson, 2009). This requires an understanding of how everyday experiences of the users life-world impact their subjective meaning-making (Shusterman, 1997; Vaikla-Poldma, 2003; White, 1998).The the

9、oretical framework proposed here links experiential knowledge to the direct interaction of users within an environment and recognizes the dynamic nature of that link. Experiences of the life-world are taken as a basis for designing environments that actually work for their intended use.The proposed

10、theoretical framework builds on philosophical ideas about the nature of lived experiences and subjective meanings, and relates it to the process by which users accept or reject a space. These ideas are explored using the example of a research project done in a residential long-term care institution.

11、 The research clarifies how the exchanges between the design researcher and the participants contribute to changes in the space.2. Designing Interior Space2.1. Current ResearchCurrently, when researchers study the design of interior space, they tend to be concerned with either the causal relationshi

12、p between people and their environment or the interactions between material properties and the space being designed. Often, environment-behavior theories form the basis of design inquiry. Such inquiry seeks to understand the relationship between people and their environment using evidence that codif

13、ies the relationship (Dickinson & Marsden, 2009; Poldma & Thompson, 2009; Zeisel, 2006). In this form of design inquiry, design researchers demonstrate how appropriately designed space can add value to living well in an institution, how safety and security can add to productivity in working environm

14、ents, or how evidence-based knowledge of environment-behavior relationships can inform the design process.Examples of this type of research include the use of questionnaire-based statistical data to glean how the environment affects peoples activities (Botti-Salitsky, 2009; Dickenson & Marsden, 2009

15、). This type of research is usually framed in a positivist mode, which seeks objective knowledge (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Studying human behavior in terms of causal relationships involves verification or falsification of a priori hypotheses. A limitation of this approach is that, as Guba and Lincoln

16、have stated, “human behaviour, unlike that of physical objects, cannot be understood without reference to the meanings and purposes attached by human actors to their activities” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 106).It is these meanings and purposes that tacit forms of knowledge contain. Such meanings and

17、purposes are usually studied through narratives and conversations between designers and users (Creswell, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002; Vaikla-Poldma, 2003).2.2. The Role of Lived ExperiencePeople develop meanings attached to objects and environments, be these art objects, personal things, or oth

18、er people in their lives (Bachelard, 1969; Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). These meanings arise through interactions that occur within spaces such as homes, offices, or recreational places; the meanings in turn affect perceptions and subsequent interactions (Poldma, 1999, 2008; Vaikla-Pol

19、dma, 2003).Design of interior spaces needs to take the above meaning-making process into account. When designing interior space, the designer (or architect) works directly with clients and users to take an existing (or imagined) interior space and transform it. A variety of knowledges come into play

20、 in this process. The role of the technical aspects of the space, such as air quality and material properties, is well recognized in design, but how the tacit aspects shape the design process is less understood.In practice, the tacit aspects of experience within spaces and between people often shape

21、 how the design evolves. Multiple experiences and contexts act together to transform empty spaces into aesthetically functional interior places (Vaikla-Poldma, 2003). These experiences are both internal and external to the user, in that the persons who use the space attach meaning to the space where

22、 they live and contribute socially through the interrelations they have with others (Malnar & Vodvarka, 1992; Poldma, 2009).2.3. Conversation and Meaning MakingDesigned spaces, whether real or virtual, trigger various experiences. When designing interior spaces, we are preoccupied with both tangible

23、 and intangible aspects. We are preoccupied with its volume and physical characteristics; we are also preoccupied with how the space forms a backdrop for a complex set of interrelationships among people, objects, contexts, and lived experiences. Moreover, these interrelationships evolve over time (M

24、alnar & Vodvarka, 1992; Mitchell, 1993).Designing interior spaces also requires an understanding of what happens when the spatial experiences people have are grounded in their real, lived experiences that are both subjective and social. These experiences happen simultaneously with changing physical

25、conditions, such as lighting, and changing time-space relations, such as when we work at home, live and work in multiple contexts, or “live at work.” In these contemporary ways of living and working, the physical space is a backdrop for changing activities, not bounded by any particular states of be

26、ing or any particular ways of knowing (Ainley, 1998; Ardener, 1981).Spaces are designed after investigating multiple issues including user needs, building contexts, space requirements, appropriate materials, colour and lighting, furnishings, social needs, cultural setting, and then combining it all

27、aesthetically to create the interior space. The space is expected to support the activities and human engagements about to take place there.Designers engage in conversations with clients and users at various stages of the design process, in part to make sense of the information gathered and then to

28、make decisions and generate ideas for the design of the space. Aesthetic and functional design decisions are made on the spot by designers engaged with stakeholders as they define how the space should be occupied and for what purposes (Poldma, 2009; Vaikla-Poldma, 2003). There is a service relations

29、hip that develops between the designers and users as they participate together in both design and production processes (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003).2.4. Static and Dynamic SpacesInterior space has long been documented theoretically in terms of physical attributes such as objects, walls, lighting, and

30、 color (Malnar & Vodvarka, 1992). Students learn about interior space as an architectural entity grounded in physical attributes that are static and exist as independent features (Poldma & Wesolkowska, 2005). Consequently interior spaces are often reduced to their physical attributes, material and s

31、urface decoration, producing static spaces where an office is an office, a restaurant is a restaurant.In practice, however, spaces are required to be used in a flexible manner where multiple activities can occur in the same place. Designers are often called upon to design spaces for dynamic lived si

32、tuations, not static ones. This calls for a more dynamic concept of space.3. Proposed Theoretical Framework3.1. Beyond Causal ExplanationsHistorically, theories about interior space have considered human-environment relationships in causal terms (Hall, 1969; Lang, Burnette, Moleski, &Vachon, 1974; M

33、alnar & Vodvarka, 1992). Influences include B. F. Skinner (1971), whose idea of behavior modification through positive reinforcement is applied to designing interiors often when specific design elements such as form and material are chosen.When human and environment relationships are seen as causal

34、in nature, knowledge claims are assembled from measurements of those relationships. The knowledge claims, when regarded as true, guide subsequent design thinking. This appears to be part of a dominant discourse of design, known as evidence-based design. However, a limitation of this approach is that

35、 it is based entirely on what is calleda priori knowledge(Amin & Cohendet, 2004; OBrien, 2006), overlooking the subjective experiences arising within the interior space.Environment-behavior theory explains human-environment relationships as causal and these relationships are situated within essentia

36、lly static physical interior attributes. It reckons, people feel well or poorly due to lighting, environment systems, color, or other physical space attributes, such as floors, ceilings, their finishes, and related objects in the space. These interior attributes “act upon the user” and their appropr

37、iation (or otherwise) of the space (Dickinson & Marsden, 2009; Zeisel, 2006). Therefore, according to this theory, changing these surface treatments should “improve” the interior situation.Causal explanations do not always take into account subjective experiences. Interior spaces are locations of bo

38、th aesthetic values and social constructions. Subjective experiences, affected by role, status, gender, and such other individual-level factors, also guide interactions in interior environments (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997; Code, 1991). For example, women navigate spaces differently

39、 from men. Similarly, cultural differences impose different social rules and hierarchies that influence social constructions of space and place (Ainley, 1998; Ardener, 1981; Rose, 2001; Rothschild, 1999; Spain, 1992). People also attach meanings to objects and the spaces they live in.Therefore, in t

40、he proposed theoretical framework, subjective experiences and meanings are considered salient elements. These are not captured usually (nor authentically) using empirical positivist modes of research.3.2. Beyond Static AttributesUntil recently, and in an effort to legitimize the profession, interior

41、 designers have generally tended to be more concerned with building professional practices, ethical conduct, and solving problems of a pragmatic nature (Abercrombie, 1990; Hildebrandt, 2000; Malnar & Vodvarka, 1992). When professional designers ask clients and the users of the spaces what they need,

42、 how they live, and observe their situations, they try to understand how people live and work, how they engage in social and personal activities to be able to provide supportive and appropriately designed spaces. The spaces they design are by their very nature dynamic in that they integrate people w

43、ithin changing circumstances.While some people live in the global 24x7 information communities, others carve out lives on the fringes just to survive. Different people can experience the same space as hostile or friendly, as virtual or physical, or as a place for personal or social needs. It is diff

44、icult to reduce these experiences to codified statistical numbers, as different subjective voices account for different ways of living, working, or playing in different cultures and societies.Accordingly, in the proposed theoretical framework, spaces are not characterized entirely through static att

45、ributes. Spaces are seen as dynamic contexts and products of social interactions.3.3. Beyond Codified InformationThere has been a criticism of “knowledge-reduced-to-information,” which refers to a limited vision of knowledge:1. the vision of knowledge as a simple stock resulting from the accumulatio

46、n of information in a linear process;2. the hypothesis that any form of knowledge can be made codifiable;3. the vision that knowledge is limited to individuals;4. the idea that knowledge is limited to something that people “possess” (Amin & Cohendet, 2004, p. 17)By contrast, knowledge derived throug

47、h experience and tacit understanding would be based on what is experienced in real time. This form of knowledge situates design thinking within the context of use, such as the ways in which people actually appropriate spaces. Forms of tacit knowledge such as lived experiences run up against evidence

48、-based positivist research norms (Storkerson, 2010).In the proposed theoretical framework, a more extended notion of knowledge is adopted. In this extended notion, knowledge relevant to design is not limited to codifiable information alone, but also includes the effect of comparing and combining sub

49、jective experiences in real time. This notion of knowledge will allow the designer to consider a wider variety of inputs while designing interior spaces, such as perceptions, experiences, and conversations.3.4. Emerging Paradigms of SpacePeople are finding themselves living and working very differently than even 5-10 years ago. In this technologically and digi