The Built Environments Laboratory: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Studio Education in the Planning and Design Disciplines

Abstract

Interdisciplinary education is becoming a hallmark strategy for preparing and providing students with the skills necessary for addressing the complexity of our contemporary built environments. In this paper, we examine how the studio model of education presents opportunities for increasing interdisciplinarity in the classroom. Specifically, we develop a pedagogical framework for examining three educational themes: establishing rigorous forms of experimentation, developing collective understanding, and generating interdisciplinary collaboration. We identify that developing collective understanding is the most challenging of the three themes to frame, implement, and achieve in the classroom, suggesting interdisciplinary studio education should focus on sharing disciplinary vocabularies and improving students' communicative techniques.

Keywords:

• Interdisciplinary
• Interdisciplinarity
• Studio
• Education
• Planning
• Architecture
• Landscape Architecture

Introduction

The modes and methods of education in the built environment disciplines are inherently diverse, reflecting the breadth and complexity of topics addressed by the profession. They can be considered ‘bridge’ disciplines — inherently cross-disciplinary fields, merging methods, approaches, and expertise to identify solutions for the complex circumstances presented by contemporary urban conditions (Beard and Basolo, 2009; Ellis et al., 2008; Youngblood, 2007). In many universities the built environment disciplines are professionally-oriented, with accredited programmes required to establish and educate students within a curriculum that, as the US Planning Accreditation Board states: ‘…ensure[s] significant interaction with other students and with faculty, hands-on collaborative work, socialization into the norms and aspirations of the profession, and observations by faculty of students' interpersonal and communication skills’ (2006, p.8). This requires that the structure and curriculum of these programmes be flexible and adaptive to student needs, to the evolving nature of the profession, and to the contemporary topics addressed within the field.

In this regard, education in planning and the allied design disciplines has been described as a fabric (Dalton, 2001), a weave of intersecting threads symbolising the relationships between pedagogy, dissemination, and the application of knowledge that informs and leads to effective practice. The weavers — educators, students, practitioners, and community members — introduce, discard, and manipulate these threads to generate new insights and perspectives, adjusting the form and structure of the fabric to meet the needs of the profession. This metaphor refers to the programme of built environment education as encompassing and connective. It provides disciplinary structure, yet it remains malleable by disciplinary shifts and external influences. Thus, in educating and training the next generation of built environment professionals, the discipline's educators must adjust pedagogical frameworks to contemporary issues and methods.

In response, planning and design education has a long-standing tradition of borrowing and adapting approaches and ideas for relaying complex ideas from other disciplines (Frank, 2006; Dalton, 2001). This continues as educators embrace new pedagogies for passing on experiences and information, and as they incorporate emerging technologies into the classroom. These approaches are evidenced by shifts toward incorporating cross-cultural and professional learning-based approaches to education (Brand and Rincon, 2007; Freestone et al., 2006; Abramson, 2005; Bowen and Delius, 2001; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell, 2000; Hollander and Thomas, 2009).

These approaches require educators and students to work collaboratively to address the rising importance of issues that engage environmental quality, social equity, and economy in our built environments. Such collaboration mirrors professional practice in that course operations become increasingly characterised by team-based and research-oriented approaches that embrace new technologies and develop strategies to address inherently interdisciplinary planning and design challenges (Chapman, 2009; Booher and Innes, 2002).

This paper builds on this pedagogy, proposing a collaborative, interdisciplinary framework for built environment education in the studio environment. The framework is applied and assessed through an interdisciplinary studio course developed as part of the Built Environments Laboratory (BE Lab) programme sponsored by the College of Built Environments at the University of Washington.

Interdisciplinary Education and the Studio Environment

The basic definition of interdisciplinary research and teaching refers to the involvement of two or more academic disciplines, yet there is no consensus definition across disciplines (Sillitoe, 2004). The crux is the ability of interdisciplinary studies to build upon specific disciplinary insights (Augsburg, 2006; Carp, 2001; Klein and Newell, 1996). Adding confusion is the often-confounding use of the terms multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary in relation to interdisciplinarity. While these terms represent distinct concepts, there is overlap in their meaning and operation. In general, simply adding together disciplinary insights to engage a problem or topic is what is meant by multidisciplinary. Interdisciplinarity requires the integration of methods, approaches, and processes across disciplines (Petts et al., 2008; Szostak, 2007; Youngblood, 2007). The term transdisciplinary has emphasised this type of integrative approach within the academy and also in partnership with applied professional fields and community groups. However, of late, the term has arguably become synonymous with interdisciplinary as integration within the academy and profession engage similar processes (Stokols, 2011; Repko, 2008, Klein and Newell, 1996).

For the purposes of this work, we have adopted a widely used definition of ‘interdisciplinarity’ developed by Klein and Newell (1996, p.395):

A process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession … Interdisciplinary studies draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensive perspective.

Of central importance is the concept of integration, which is the process through which theories and methods from multiple disciplines are explored, evaluated, and tested to develop an approach for analysing a specific problem from multiple perspectives. In this way, practitioners of interdisciplinary studies are more apt, not only to comprehend a broader set of perspectives and approaches to the same problem, but also to identify the strengths and weaknesses of methods and theory within the different disciplines (Augsburg, 2006; Szostak, 2004). Thus, the process of interdisciplinary education has the ability to broaden one's perspective while generating a more focused critique to build depth within one's chosen field of study.

Lew Hopkins (2001) identifies four benefits of team work, in which he clearly includes interdisciplinary integration: (1) the ability to draw upon a larger base of knowledge and sets of skills, (2) parallel processing, (3) specialisation, and (4) interactive collaboration. The first is obvious: the more minds that are focused on a particular problem, the larger the sample from which a solution can be identified. Parallel processing improves efficiency in deriving a solution by having members of a team work simultaneously on either different parts of the topic being addressed or on distinct tasks needed to derive a solution. Specialisation occurs when members of the group work on tasks for which they have a greater base of knowledge and skills to accomplish specific goals, further increasing efficiency. Finally, interactive collaboration among group members may yield benefits by adding variety to idea generation.

Whereas integration in interdisciplinary studies is the core of the process, synthesis reflects the product. Inherent within the definition of synthesis is the development of something new: a structure, programme, or way of comprehending a particular problem or topic. The results of integrative approaches to planning education offer opportunities for generating new epistemological frameworks for conceptualising and addressing the complexity of contemporary urban conditions. One option for extending this commitment to professional training in an interdisciplinary, collaborative learning format is a team-structured studio.

Used as a pedagogical tool for decades in the planning and allied design disciplines, studio (or workshop) courses provide an opportunity for solution-oriented and applied learning (Higgins et al., 2009; Frank, 2006; Schon, 1985). The studio is a relatively rare pedagogical approach in university environments, and it has been described as a particularly powerful method for teaching students to identify, assess, and generate solutions for complex problems (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996). It offers students the opportunity to build disciplinary vocabulary and learn new technical skills, and it introduces a practitioner's perspective in its approach to addressing complex topics (Ledewitz, 1985). A studio is a place where students learn by doing, a venue for hands-on learning that requires students to take an active role in engaging with and incorporating distinct components of the curriculum into a comprehensive project (Ochsner, 2000; Schon, 1985).

A Pedagogical Framework for Studio Education

While the problem sets and topics addressed in studios are inherently multi-disciplinary, generally the focus in these courses is on utilising approaches and methodologies that are disciplinarily specialised. Built environment disciplinary studios direct the student's engagement by highlighting the conditions — scale, structure, and performance — of a particular project that are most central to that discipline (Frank, 2006; Chi, 1999). For example, where architectural studios tend to focus on creative design at the building scale of a project, examining use, structural integrity, and building systems performance, planning studios often take a more rational, problem-oriented approach to examining potential policy-based, socioeconomic, or physical implications for larger-scale communities.

Providing a focus on interdisciplinary learning in the studio environment enables a reevaluation of pedagogical structures supporting an approach of open-source experimentation. In this, value is produced through collaborative research and design processes that challenge conventional practice within the fields, and less on an individual's autonomous creativity and productivity (Steele, 2004; Milburn and Brown, 2003; Boyer and Mitgang, 1996). Uniting the benefits of interdisciplinary learning with the structure of studio education has the potential to forge new pedagogical techniques that embrace the diversity of disciplinary approaches for knowledge generation. At the same time, they develop solutions that represent a collective understanding of the specific issues in a given project.

Building on this potential, we developed a studio curriculum designed to advance three themes: (1) establishing rigorous forms of experimentation, (2) developing collective understanding, and (3) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

In studio, experimentation forms the empirical foundation for individual and collective enquiry and learning. Experimentation accesses the creative capacity of students to develop alternative perspectives and generate diverse solutions to a given problem or set of circumstances. A pedagogical challenge for those teaching studio courses is establishing rigorous forms of experimentation without impinging on the creative capacities of students to generate solutions. Where experimentation embraces creative opportunities for assessing and exploring potential constraints and synergies, rigor insinuates a rational or structured approach into these lines of enquiry. Thus, within the studio environment a dynamic balance between creative exploration and experimentation and a more structured framework for enquiry should be achieved.

In interdisciplinary terms, a framework for enquiry should be evaluated based on whether it contributes to a group's collective understanding of a particular issue or set of phenomena (Szostak, 2004). Developing collective understanding is a critical component of interdisciplinary research and teaching (Stokols, 2011). In order to evaluate and synthesise findings and eventually develop an intellectual and operational common ground, it is necessary to understand the disciplinary theories, methods, and phenomena in which these insights are grounded (Szostak, 2007). A key element to generating collective understanding is communication. Each discipline has ideas and terms specific to its perspective on problem solving. In many ways it is the lack of the ability to communicate that drives many interdisciplinary groups toward less-than-successful outcomes (Hopkins, 2001).

Whereas experimentation and the development of collective understanding form an integrated process, interdisciplinary collaboration represents the product of this pedagogical approach. Whether as a specific proposal or a more generalised response, the act of collaboration is expressed through teamwork, shared disciplinary understanding, and interdisciplinary communication (Klein and Newell, 1996).

The Built Environments Laboratory

To apply this framework, we chose to develop and conduct an interdisciplinary research and design studio focusing on the opportunities presented by an integration of urban agricultural systems and sustainable site design. Titled ‘Vertical Farming and Sustainable Site Design’, the selected topic was chosen for the inherent complexity associated with merging urban food systems planning with accepted methods of site design that engage ecological processes and improve socioeconomic conditions. The project location is a 30-acre low-income housing complex designated for redevelopment in downtown Seattle, Washington (USA). Project goals for the studio class were to assess the potential of the site and to develop a series of site-design alternatives that supported agricultural integration, utilised low-impact development strategies, and increased housing densities.

The class was composed of three faculty and one teaching assistant from the College of Built Environments at the University of Washington and seventeen students, admitted to the class through a competitive application process. An equal mix of graduate and undergraduate students was selected from a pool of applicants representing five disciplines from across the university.

• introductory phase: Developing a disciplinary perspective for generating collective understanding

• [A1]: Interact — an individual exercise conducted in class requiring students to define urban agriculture as it relates to a specified list of biophysical and social systems.

• [A2]: Transect — in interdisciplinary teams, the students traversed the site identifying and representing the relationships between a set of biophysical and sociai systems.

• [A3]: Matrix — in interdisciplinary group of four, the students developed an organising framework that highlighted the relationships identified in [A2] for the entire site.

• [A4]: Case Study — an individual exercise in which the students explored precedent cases for the integration of agricultural practices into urban environments.

• final project development: Project development and interdisciplinary collaboration

• [A5]: Strategy — in their final interdisciplinary team of six, the students used the knowledge gained in previous studies to develop a guiding strategy for the development of their final project across all spatial scales and phases of the project.

• [A6]: Concept — each team was required to extend their strategy into a conceptual foundation and organising framework for all planning and design decisions.

• [A7]: Development — Based on the feedback from the professional panel each team began to further develop and refine their ideas through an iterative process of experimentation and assessment to develop their alternative proposal.

From the outset, the students were made aware of the experimental nature of the course, and the course syllabus outlined the three criteria of the interdisciplinary studio framework through a discussion of the course objectives. They were informed that the synthesis of this collective experimentation was to result in products that revealed, at a minimum, an attempt at interdisciplinary collaboration supported by critical discussions, teamwork, and reflected modes of communication as integral parts of the studio. The studio approach and progress were guided by seven assignments, each building upon the lessons learned from the previous assignments. They were generally structured as four analytically based, introductory exercises and three cumulative assignments framing the structure and development of the final studio project (see Table 1).

Table 1 BE Lab course structure and description of assignments [A1–A7]

During the first three weeks of the ten-week course, the initial four assignments required that the students research and familiarise themselves with the studio topic and the contextual conditions of the site. The intent of these early group assignments was to allow the students to explore the site while simultaneously building a collective understanding regarding the opportunities and limitations of their own discipline through discussions and active engagement with students from other disciplines. Figure 1 (assignment A2) reflects one student group's collective approach for generating an assessment of site conditions.

Figure 1 Example of student work: assessment of site conditions ((Selina Hunstiger (MLA), Jenna Madeja (BHist), and Barrett McBride (BArch))

The second phase of the course built upon the learning outcomes of the previous assignments. It required students to develop and employ creative approaches through an iterative process of experimentation requiring a synthesis of their collective understanding of the topic and site. The products of this phase were sets of planning and design alternatives that demonstrated interdisciplinary collaboration. Each of the interdisciplinary teams were assigned distinct development density criteria, and asked to generate their own approach. The intention was to challenge their understanding of the project and ensure diversity in the perspectives, methods, and outcomes.

These final assignments required students to develop an organising concept that integrated urban agricultural systems and sustainable site-design strategies and synthesise their ideas into a comprehensive planning and design alternative. The projects were intended to form a base of rigorous and creative design strategies that integrated the multiple contextual scales of neighborhood, site, and building. The final proposals from the interdisciplinary groups of students required a coherent vision for future development that represents a collaborative integration of disciplinary perspectives. Figure 2 represents a collective vision of the site, including building prototypes, urban agricultural production, and community engagement.

Figure 2 Example of student work: final site proposals (Zachary Stevenson (BArch))

Methods

To test the interdisciplinary pedagogical framework the course structure, assignments, and products were qualitatively assessed. Assignments [A1] and [A4] were not included in this assessment because their focus was on generating individual understanding about the topical material addressed in the class. Course evaluations, which specifically addressed the student perceptions of the processes and outcomes, and semi-structured, open-ended interviews with each of the faculty, the teaching assistant and five students representing three of the participating disciplines, were also conducted to assess the effectiveness of the framework and the structure of the course.

After compiling the data, qualitative data analysis software (AtlasTi) was used to organise and thematically code the materials (Weber, 1990). A priori codes were used for anticipated themes, and other codes emerged organically through data review and analysis. Thematic content analysis allowed for identification of common themes, even though students from different disciplines or at different academic levels may have used different wording in their various responses. Once the data was coded, it was queried for entries that expressed our themes of rigorous forms of experimentation, the development of collective understanding, and the act of interdisciplinary collaboration.

While such data provides material for assessment, there are limitations to this approach, including potential researcher bias and the inability to determine causal relationships. As the faculty of the course, the authors tried to be highly reflective in their practice, recognising their participant observer status, in an attempt to control for potential biases. Finally, although this qualitative approach does not allow for the determination of causal relationships, the authors were able to triangulate across multiple sources and validate class materials within their coding structure. Despite these limitations, and without overextending findings, the analysis reveals perspectives on the needs and potential of a collaborative, interdisciplinary studio such as in this BE Lab.

Analysis

This enquiry into the structure of the BE Lab course is developed through the three educational themes: establishing rigorous forms of experimentation, developing collective understanding, and generating interdisciplinary collaboration. The analysis is framed through the inputs (course materials) and the outputs (student work) of the course. Student work, course evaluations, and post-course interviews (outputs) can only be expected to reflect the educational themes covered in the course material (Table 3). As such, the initial phase of the analysis examines course materials (inputs) including the syllabus and all assignments (Table 2). Two main questions are explored: (1) did the course design provide a foundation for addressing the proposed themes of interdisciplinary education? and (2) did the students respond to those cues and deliver products or reflections that demonstrate the course objective of generating interdisciplinary collaboration?

Table 2 Analysis of instructor-created course inputs

Table 3 Analysis of student outputs and evaluation and interview responses

Recognising the potential imprecision of the coding aggregation, the tables are ordinally grouped in three levels to describe the emphasis associated with a particular theme. The first level — no entry — indicates that no comment was coded for a specific theme; the second level reflects the presence of a particular theme (coded one to four times); and the third represents themes that were coded extensively (five or more times).

The analysis of the instructor-generated course inputs breaks the course into the three phases: overview, introductory, and final project development. Several points become clear with regard to the delivery of the pedagogical themes. First, all are identified in the class materials, however, only rigorous forms of experimentation is emphasised (in the syllabus and in the introduction of the final project [A5]).

The other two themes are identified, but less frequently. Additionally, while collective understanding is developed in most of the first two phases of the course, it is only coded in the introduction to the final production phase of the course. This may be partially due to the nature of these last two assignments, which primarily give instruction for the final production process. In an iterative design process, it is assumed that the final project builds on the preliminary assignments [A1–A4] and that collective understanding has already developed. These findings show that there is need for more explicit emphasis on the development of collective understanding throughout the course. Interdisciplinary collaboration was consistently identified in all the expected assignments.

In general, the input materials were inclusive of the themes presented in the pedagogical framework. This indicates that an expectation of the students' performance in terms of demonstrating their interaction with or inclusion of those concepts in their work is, on this basis, reasonable.

The analysis of student work, course evaluations (written and Scantron), and interviews includes more coded observations across the pedagogical themes than the inputs due to a greater amount of available data. The themes of experimentation and collaboration are well represented by the data, but collective understanding is only moderately identified, and then only in the student work and interviews. In the course evaluations and student comments, there is no evidence that the students were able to reflect on their development of collective understanding during the studio process.

In combination, Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate a strong permeation of the three pedagogical themes in the materials provided for the course as well as the outputs of student work and reflections. While this thematic analysis highlights the potential of this framework, the data also provides the opportunity for a more contextually rich evaluation of the themes, using direct responses from students. A discussion that relies on specific data in each of the pedagogical themes generates a broader understanding for the potential applicability of these themes in studio courses across the built environment disciplines.

Discussion

Projects assigned in design and research studio courses are generally problem oriented. Learning in this context is not necessarily found in a solution, but rather in the process taken to generate that solution (Worthman, 2007). The pedagogical focus is on critically examining the process through which a problem is framed and explored. These circumstances in turn inspire creative intention, which is further organised and assessed through rationally derived experimentations to generate potential solutions (Keiran, 2007). While described linearly, the effectiveness of this process is increased through an iterative approach in which the findings generated through one line of enquiry enable the construction and pursuit of more detailed and informed approaches. Unsurprisingly, the lens of a single discipline can limit potential learning opportunities when addressing complex problems, such as those associated with contemporary built environments (Beard and Basolo, 2009; Beane, 1997).

As such, interdisciplinary education is rapidly becoming a hallmark strategy for providing students with the skills necessary for addressing these complex problems (Stokols, 2011; Thering and Chanse, 2011). Broadening the scope of the problem to be addressed beyond individual disciplinary boundaries increases the complexity of both the process and the outcome. This can be challenging for interdisciplinary course instructors. It is worthwhile, though, as an interdisciplinary approach that integrates multiple perspectives for how problems are framed and methods used to generate potential solutions offers students opportunities to recognise the potential and limitations of their primary discipline (Stokols, 2006).

The proposed framework of the three themes — establishing rigorous forms of experimentation, developing collective understanding, and generating interdisciplinary collaboration — provides a structure for the development and teaching of built environment studios. Individually, each of the themes generates strong educational opportunities; however, the strength of the framework emerges from the simultaneous development of the themes. Such development helps participants (students and educators) to understand the pertinent dimensions and analytical breadth of an issue and develop an organisational scope that addresses the problem.

Rigorous forms of experimentation

Experimentation arguably forms the foundation for student learning in studio (Steele, 2004). It has the potential to unlock the creative capacity of students, and instill an expectation for iteratively evaluating and adjusting the framing and response to a problem. An interdisciplinary studio offers the opportunity to extend the base of knowledge and broaden the methods and perspectives for addressing a problem. Establishing rigorous forms of experimentation in course projects that require cross-disciplinary framing allows students of different disciplines to build upon disciplinary approaches as well as explore methods used in other disciplines. The emphasis on sharing different methods and repetition of this process in the introductory assignments of a course fosters an iterative approach essential for the research and design process (Higgins et al., 2009).

In the course evaluations, all but one student (16/17) identified the BE Lab course as “intellectually stimulating”. While arguably most courses would meet this level of engagement, in supplemental written comment the students that mentioned rigor (10/10) claimed to value the framework provided for their creative work as well as the intellectual challenge offered by the class. A representative comment indicates the students were challenged as well: “The complexity of this studio problem stretched my capacity to integrate: systems, disciplines, group dynamics and media of representation.” An additional lesson to be taken from this analysis is that the problems addressed in a course need to be “big enough” but not too complex to be paralysing. Establishing rigor in student experimentation and providing freedom for creative expression creates a flexible approach in structuring and managing course expectations (Thering and Chanse, 2011; Higgins and Simpson, 1997).

Collective understanding

While the process of experimentation and iterative learning across multiple lines of enquiry lends rigor to the depth and quality of experimentation in the studio, developing collective understanding across participating disciplines is a less structured process. It is largely dependent upon individual competencies and group dynamics, though instructors can model successful behavior (Steele, 2004). Of the three themes, it is identified the least in the coding of course inputs and outputs, and it goes unmentioned in student evaluations of the course since it is arguably the least familiar theme for the students. Commenting on their development of collective understanding requires a level of reflection that students may not necessarily have immediately following the studio process

For collective understanding, individual students need to have the opportunity to develop the tools to realise, comprehend, and question their assumptions about the applications of their disciplinary perspectives (Vidler and Wigley, 2004). They must also question these assumptions across a broader base of perspectives and understanding about the issue at hand. As a group, recognition and an explicit understanding of disciplinary distinctions is a first step in developing collective understanding. Building common ground for open communication is challenging, perhaps because students have varying degrees of understanding in their own disciplines. From the BE Lab, one third (20/60) of the student comments coded for collective understanding addressed this difficulty. While many students recognised that having a “common language” or “developing a common vocabulary” was essential for the progress of their collaborative projects, one student comment referred to the attempt to “talk across disciplines” as difficult and discouraging.

Developing collective understanding involves maintaining an open, yet critical acceptance for the application of a broad range of theories, constructs, and methods used to address a given topic (Stokols, 2011). Many of the comments (13/40) from students for how to improve the class recommended the integration of instruction of relevant topics and skills to bridge some of the knowledge gaps between the disciplines. Further options included in the BE Lab, would be to initiate team-based exercises early in a course. These exercises should be solution driven, forcing teams to work together to identify disciplinary preferences with respect to phenomena (content), theories, and methods (Szostak, 2007).

Interdisciplinary collaboration

As described, interdisciplinary collaboration is the product derived from the synthesis of establishing rigorous forms of experimentation and developing collective understanding. Besides being grounded in disciplinary understanding, interdisciplinary collaboration requires strong skills in teamwork and team integration (Johnson et al., 2002; Hopkins, 2001; Bean, 1997).

Reflecting on these ideas, the student responses toward interdisciplinary collaboration were divided. More than half (34/61 ) of the student comments coded for interdisciplinary collaboration describe a positive learning experience from working in interdisciplinary groups. However, students also describe struggling with group work. More than half (9/17) of the students in the course listed “difficulties with the group process” and “coordinating larger groups” as the aspects that detracted most from their learning.

This conflict is also reflected in several comments regarding ways to improve the class. These improvements include hosting a workshop on, or providing set of guidelines for, effective teamwork early in the course. In sum, while the student groups, in general, thought they achieved interdisciplinary collaboration, getting to that point was overly difficult. Other critical responses from the students about the course structure and its impact on interdisciplinary learning include a need for smaller groups for improving communication between student teams and the faculty. It should be noted that much like the communication challenges described to achieve collective understanding, these opportunities were a regular part of the course. We can infer that a focus on communication is paramount in interdisciplinary studios.

In teaching a student group with a wide range of backgrounds, a more structured introduction to team building and leadership strategies would thus improve the studio process. Additionally, fostering interpersonal communication and collaboration skills is an invaluable asset for the students and their further careers.

In this model, peer learning becomes as - or even more - important than instructor-led dissemination. The work generated in the studio is collectively produced and discussed across all stages of its development (Worthman, 2007; Ochsner, 2000). Students are often required to present their work to peers and instructors to garner feedback, initiate new ideas, and generate a greater depth of understanding surrounding the implications of their proposals. The willingness of everybody involved in the interdisciplinary studio to push beyond their individual disciplinary comfort zones is a prerequisite for successful collaboration and generation of collective understanding. This includes the openness to apply new methods and approaches and the readiness to work in an open-source, creative studio environment (Steele, 2004; Szostak, 2004; Milburn and Brown, 2003). An open discussion about disciplinary distinctions and expectations, a framework for the exchange of information and resources, and the selection of interested students in a competitive process can facilitate this process.

While fully embracing the benefits of a broader base of knowledge and experience generated through interdisciplinary training, this research highlights the administrative and operational difficulties associated with engaging in interdisciplinary studies, including the inflexibility in degree requirements and issues of communication between disciplines (Stokols, 2011; Thering and Chanse, 2011; Moran, 2002; Lattuca, 2001). To alleviate these concerns, James Beane (1997) advocates an integrative approach to curriculum development that merges participants' (students and educators) interests, experience, and expertise around a central theme (Beane, 1997). The experience from the BE Lab would indicate real potential. Obviously, it was not without its difficulties, however, and departments or individual faculty should recognise the challenges, particularly the increased time needed to handle such logistics.

Conclusions

Due to the complexity of contemporary urban conditions, the traditional division of disciplines is no longer an adequate model for studio teaching in the built environment. Individual disciplines do not have the capacity to develop the comprehensive understanding necessary to frame and address the inherent complexity of built environment conditions (Frank, 2006; Dalton, 2001). Professionally, multi-disciplinary teams are often formed, lending insight and expertise to a particular aspect or set of conditions encompassed within a larger project. As the fabric of design and planning education continues to stretch and adapt to the evolving interests of faculty, students, and communities, the curricula of our professional programmes must respond accordingly. Yet they must do so in a manner that is self-critical and reflective. While interdisciplinary studies are not new educational phenomena, little information is provided for how interdisciplinary courses should be structured and conducted.

The three educational themes proposed in this paper form a framework for structuring interdisciplinary approaches in research and design studios. While these themes must be activated, using contextually appropriate methods and measures, they provide a structure for developing perspective on the challenging aspects of interdisciplinary education in the studio environment. Our case analysis reveals that establishing rigorous forms of experimentation as a primary input theme pushes students to recognise both the potential and the limitations of their disciplinary perspectives and training. In this regard, framing the process of research and design in the studio as ‘experimental’ enables students to effectively seek new approaches and alternative responses to disciplinary perspectives.

Developing a collective understanding between students is a more difficult endeavor. In the evaluation of this case, cross-disciplinary miscommunication emerges as a barrier to interdisciplinary collaboration. This insinuates that the course structure and framing of assignments should focus on establishing open lines of communication across disciplines to identify disciplinary weaknesses, and more importantly to build on the strengths and learned disciplinary skills needed for addressing topics presented within a given course.

A critical component of collective understanding is that students must be able to generate a clear perspective of their own disciplinary skills and approaches and identify appropriate modes of communication. In this regard, focusing on the processes for developing collective understanding may lead to more successful interdisciplinary collaborations.