Copyright 2012 James Benedict Brown - jamesbenedictbrown@yahoo.co.uk
Second, questions remain about the most appropriate timeframe and timing of live projects in architectural education, especially with regard to students’ higher than usual levels of engagement and productivity. The duration, timescale and assessment structures of a live project were linked to the degree of critical reflection that it supported. One participant explained that how “if it’s a short project and within a six week period, and the aim is to design and construct something, then that’s it: shutters come down, on to the next project. Then yes, the live project has limited that opportunity [to reflect].” (p. 14) It should be emphasised, therefore, that live projects do not automatically nurture critical thinking: students must be provided with the time, space and pedagogical mechanisms to benefit from the experience. Third, this research was conducted during a period of change for the joint validation criteria of the ARB/RIBA, with the first validation board conducted according to the new criteria conducted during the course of the inquiry. The greater flexibility of the new validation criteria in supporting pedagogical innovation (such as live projects) was acknowledged and supported by all four respondents. Fourth and finally, when the sentiments of Pete - who reported that “the trouble with academia is perhaps that it tends to isolate itself from practice” (Pete, p. 9) and that a live project “endeavours to heal the split between practice and teaching” (p. 5) - were presented to the respondent validation panel, a dialogue was prompted that considered how “there’s always a very optimistic language around live projects.” (p. 18) This language of optimism was challenged as “naïve,” (p. 19) while another participant explained how “there’s an assumption in there that there is a split between academia and practice. And I would challenge that, or be prepared to have it challenged.” (Ibid) Another explained his disagreement with the notion of a “fundamental split” between architectural education and practice, saying: “live projects don’t heal that split, they illuminate some of the rub.” (p. 19) While the observation that academia “tends to isolate itself from practice” is indeed relevant to understanding how live projects might correct a such an isolation, for members of the second respondent validation panel it was more interesting to understand live projects as an opportunity to explore the differences and tensions between architectural education and practice. Whereas the modern live project of the nineteen-fifties sought to integrate the education and training of the architect and address a perceived split Downloaded from learningarchitecture.wordpress.com
271