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

References

• Abramson D. B. (2005). The ‘studio abroad’ as a mode of transcultural engagement in urban planning education: A reflection of ten years of Sino-Canadian collaboration. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25 (1), 89–102. doi: 10.1177/0739456X04271475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augsburg T. (2006). Becoming interdisciplinary: An introduction to interdisciplinary studies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Beane J. (1997). Curriculum integration. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beard V. A. & Basolo V. (2009). Commentary: Moving beyond crisis, crossroads, and the abyss in the disciplinary formation of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29 (2), 233–242. doi: 10.1177/0739456X09342555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booher D. E. & Innes J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21 (3), 221–236. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen S. & Delius C. (Eds.). (2001). International careers in urban planning. New York: American Planning Association, International Division.
   Google Scholar
• Boyer E. L. & Mitgang L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architectural education and practice. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Brand R. & Rincon H. (2007). Tackling six common dilemmas in ‘live’ planning projects. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2 (2), 36–60.
   Google Scholar
• Carp R. M. (2001). Integrative praxes: Learning from multiple knowledge formations. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 71–121.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman D. W. (2009). Knowing our places? Contexts and edges in integrating disciplines in built environment education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4 (2), 9–28.
   Google Scholar
• Chi L. (1999). Boundary studies. Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (2), 115–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton L. C. (2001). Weaving the fabric of planning as education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (4), 423–436. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0102000404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis G., Morison S. & Purdy J. (2008). A new concept of interprofessional education in planning programmes: Reflection on healthy urban planning project. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3 (2), 75–93.
   Google Scholar
• Frank A. I. (2006). Three decades of thought on planning education. Journal of Planning Literature, 21 (1), 15–67. doi: 10.1177/0885412206288904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freestone R., Thompson S. & Williams P. (2006). Student experiences of work-based learning in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26 (2), 237–249. doi: 10.1177/0739456X06295027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins M., Aitken-Rose E. & Dixon J. (2009). The pedagogy of the planning studio: A view from down under. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4 (1), 8–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander J. B. & Thomas D. (2009). Commentary: Virtual planning: Second life and the online studio. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29 (1), 108–113. doi: 10.1177/0739456X09334142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins L. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson B. R., Silbernagel J., Hostetler M., Mills A., Ndubisi F., Fife E. & Hunter M. R. (2002). The nature of dialogue and the dialogue of nature: Designers and ecologists in collaboration. In: Johnson B. R. & Hill K. (Eds.). Ecology and design: Frameworks for learning. Washington D.C.: Island Press, pp. 305–356.
   Google Scholar
• Keiran S. (2007). Research in design: Planning doing monitoring learning. Journal of Architectural Education, 61 (1), 27–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00125.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein J. T. & Newell W. H. (1996). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In: Gaff J. G. & Ratcliff J. (Eds.). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 393–395.
   Google Scholar
• Lattuca L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity. Nashville, KY: Vanderbilt University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ledewitz S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38 (2), 2–8.
   Google Scholar
• Milburn L. S. & Brown R. D. (2003). The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64 (1), 47–66. http://dx.doi.org./10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00200-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran J. (2002). Interdisciplinarity. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ochsner J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (4), 194–206. doi: 10.1162/104648800564608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petts J., Owens S. & Bulkeley H. (2008). Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environment. Geoforum, 39 (2), 593–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Planning Accreditation Board. (2006). The accreditation document: Criteria and procedures of the planning accreditation program. Chicago: PAB.
   Google Scholar
• Repko A. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Theory and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Roakes S. L. & Norris-Tirrell D. (2000). Community service learning in planning education: A framework for course development. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (1), 100–110. doi: 10.1177/073945600128992636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schon D. A. (1985). The design studio, an exploration in its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sillitoe P. (2004). Interdisciplinary experiences: Working with indigenous knowledge in development. Interdisciplinary Science Review, 29 (1), 6–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele B. (2004). Brett Steele: D[R]L, Architectural Association. Architectural Design, 74 (5), 67–71.
   Google Scholar
• Stokols D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (1), 63–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokols D. (2011). Transdisciplinary action research in landscape architecture and planning: Prospectus and challenges. Landscape Journal, 30 (1), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Szostak R. (2004). Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Szostak R. (2007). How and why to teach interdisciplinary research practice. Journal of Research Practice, 3 (2), Article M17. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/92/89 (Accessed 13 June 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Thering S. & Chanse V. (2011). The scholarship of transdisciplinary action research: Toward a new paradigm for the planning and design professions. Landscape Journal, 30 (1), 6–18.
   Google Scholar
• Vidler A. & Wigley M. (2004). Anthony Vidler [and] Mark Wigley. Architectural Design, 74 (5), 14–23.
   Google Scholar
• Weber R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Worthman B. D. (2007). The way we think about the way we think: Architecture is a paradigm for reconsidering research. Journal of Architectural Education, 61 (1), 44–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00127.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngblood D. (2007). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and bridging disciplines: A matter of process. Journal of Research Practice, 3 (2), Article M17. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/issue/view/6 (Accessed 13 June 2011).
   Google Scholar