THE SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Introduction
This chapter addresses the socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation studies. It considers understanding the context for the critic, evaluator, project or building, and the society at large as a key factor that influences the outcome of these studies. While this book attempts to demonstrate that the “two currently divergent paradigms of architectural criticism and building performance evaluations can co-exist and even complement each other,” I argue that there is a critical and dynamic context that should be considered when initiating criticisms and evaluation studies, and when attempting to understand their value to the individual, society, and profession.
The political, economic, social, and cultural context of studies influences the instigation and function of these studies in intellectual, professional, and scientific aspects of society. Democratic and autonomous societies value personal opinions and user feedback more than autocratic or authoritarian societies. The value of a qualitative approach is inferior to that of a quantitative approach in less developed societies. Cultural beliefs and attitudes continue to affect how people view criticism and evaluation studies. The following account attempts to highlight significant contextual issues that should be understood in order to improve the impact of criticism and evaluation studies in different socio-cultural realms.
Recent trends
Since the end of the twentieth century, the field of architectural criticism and evaluation has witnessed the advent of a new shift in focus from criticism to evaluation, assessment, and performance. It also witnessed the praise of quantitative methods over qualitative ones. “Announcing the death of criticism is nothing new,” wrote Hélène Jannière (Jannière 2010). This is attributed partially to the pressing requirements of the realm of scientific research and granting agencies that value the measured over the perceived and the quantitative over the phenomenological. This shift is also attributed to the emergence of new types of organizational clientele and decision-makers who prefer to utilize quantitative and statistical evidence during decision-making. As Rendell put it, “very few critics seem willing to reflect upon the purposes and possibilities of architectural criticism, or to consider their choice of subject matter and modes of interpretation and operation” (Rendell 2005).
As sustainability is becoming increasingly a requirement, the increase in applying different sustainability assessment and rating systems poses a new challenge to the field. Most projects are obliged to provide evidence of their sustainability strategies, energy conservation, reduction of carbon footprint, and concerns for world climate change. Yet, there is increasing criticism that “these tools [are] still unable to estimate the actual project outputs of sustainable projects, as sustainable measures and technologies can turn out differently in the use-phase. Also, the influence of project end-users is underestimated and not considered properly in these tools” (Abdalla et al. 2011)”
Criticism failed to provide an alternative to evaluation and assessment studies. As Bürger put it, “We live in an age in which the spirit of critique has become strangely numb” (Bürger 2010). There was a time during the mid-twentieth century when criticism was considered the drive to initiate change and improvement of the profession. This period was followed by a period of increased success in evaluation research. The rise of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) research was followed by a more holistic evaluative research covering all building aspects known as building performance evaluation (BPE). It was a clear shift of focus from the “occupant” to the “building” in an effort to achieve more recognition from the prevailing scientific community.
A chronic problem in the field is the value and benefits of its results, and how are they are utilized by practitioners, decision-makers, and users. As pointed out in the Federal Facilities Council (FCC) report:
only a limited number of large organizations and institutions have active POE programs. Relatively few organizations have lessons from POE programs fully incorporated into their building delivery processes, job descriptions, or reporting arrangements. One reason for this limited use is the nature of POE itself, which identifies both successes and failures. Most organizations do not reward staff or programs for exposing shortcomings.
(Federal Facilities Council 2001)
Among the barriers to making POE more effective, the report added: the difficulty in establishing causal links between positive outcomes and the physical environment; reluctance by organizations and building professionals to participate in a process that may expose problems or failures; fear of soliciting feedback from occupants on the grounds that both seeking and receiving this type of information may obligate an organization to make costly changes to its services or to the building; lack of participation by building users; and failure to distribute information resulting from POEs to decision-makers and other stakeholders (Federal Facilities Council 2001). Knowledge gained from evaluation studies should be fundamental for an informed new buildings and projects decision-making process.
Defining the socio-cultural context
The term “socio-cultural” is an umbrella term that encompasses the social and cultural aspects that exist in a particular context. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, socio-cultural means “of or involving both social and cultural factors” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language 2011). It suggests the inseparable nature of culture and society.
Socio-cultural studies traditionally focused on the interface between society and culture and its impact on people and their actions. This approach was “first systematized and applied by L. S. Vygotsky and his collaborators in Russia in the nineteen-twenties and thirties. [It was] based on the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts, and are mediated by language and other symbol systems” (John-Steiner and Holbrook 1996). While this chapter attempts to demonstrate the impact of socio-cultural context on architectural criticism and evaluation, it does not attempt to lessen the impact of other economic, environmental, or technological factors. And, as Bürger “politely” put it, “the general political climate can probably not be denied” (Bürger 2010).
According to Oxford Dictionaries, criticism means “(1) the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes, (2) the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work” (Oxford Dictionaries