Jane Anderson
Programme Lead for Undergraduate Architecture
Co-founder of the Live Projects Network
Director of OB1 LIVE
National Teaching Fellow
Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Brookes Teaching Fellow
Year One Coordinator
RIBA Validation panel member
External Examiner
RIBA Chartered and ARB Registered architect
Phone: 01865 483 200
Address: School of Architecture
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane
OX3 0BP
Co-founder of the Live Projects Network
Director of OB1 LIVE
National Teaching Fellow
Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Brookes Teaching Fellow
Year One Coordinator
RIBA Validation panel member
External Examiner
RIBA Chartered and ARB Registered architect
Phone: 01865 483 200
Address: School of Architecture
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane
OX3 0BP
less
InterestsView All (21)
Uploads
Thesis by Jane Anderson
• How has the emerging field of live project education developed to date?
• What can we learn from live projects about education, research, practice, society and the design process?
• How has our expanded knowledge progressed live project education?
The publications were produced at a time when the practices and boundaries of live project education were unclear and contested. There was also an increase in activity and dialogue that stimulated the emergence of live projects as a field of inquiry. Therefore the thesis includes a chronological literature review in order to capture an overview of activity at this time, thereby demonstrating how the publications fit within this context and how they contribute to knowledge and the development of the field.
The principal contributions to knowledge in the published work concern architectural education, research, practice, society, the design process and the relationship between them that is revealed by live project education. This critical appraisal articulates the ways in which the published work contributed to the development of live project education as a field of inquiry in itself. It evaluates the impact and influence of the published work on practice and inter-disciplinary pedagogy. It concludes with an assessment of the significance and limitations of the work, considering scope for further work that would enrich the development of the field.
Books by Jane Anderson
This chapter describes the experimentation with and documentation and analysis of a diverse range of live projects, discussed in relation to Lave and Wenger’s theory of situated learning via a process of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger 1996) and findings from OB1 LIVE (Anderson & Priest 2013a), the authors’ programme of live projects. From this we devised an inclusive definition and method of typological analysis that revealed different live project models and previously concealed connections between them. This was tested, expanded and disseminated through our development of the Live Projects Network (Anderson & Priest 2013b), an online resource to recognise and connect the multiplicity of participants in live project practice.
Papers by Jane Anderson
This paper explores three connected questions: What differentiates and connects contemporary international live projects? What live project models and strategies have emerged to date? What influence are live projects having on architectural education, research and practice?
Ordering live projects by singular categories such as outcome or motive fails to acknowledge their complexity or to reveal new models and strategies. Quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrate that human and physical resources and contexts have the greatest influence on diversity of live project models and strategies. The expertise of the live project participants is capable of overcoming contextual resource limitations via design ingenuity. A Taxonomy has been developed to illustrate the relationship between these factors. This allows us to identify the ways in which live projects are influencing contemporary architectural education, research and practice.
This paper aims to reappraise the interplay of reality and imagination in architectural design as a cognitive process. There are two intentions: to reassess empirical responses and received wisdom about what is real and what is imagined in architectural design; and to reassess the perception of differences between imagination and reality occurring across education and practice.
Live Projects have become recognised as a complementary pedagogy in architectural education. Engagement has increased noticeably since the University of Auburn’s Rural Studio in Alabama gained prominence in the 1990’s. (Oppenheimer & Hursley, 2002). In this special issue the focus is upon Live Project activities and outcomes across different disciplines, as a means to facilitate new forms of discourse around their pedagogic integrity and reach. In this issue, Benedict Brown’s comprehensive long-range survey of Live Projects in UK education in the fields of medicine, planning, law and architecture, gives a particularly helpful overview of the way that different disciplinary contexts have provoked, stimulated and nurtured various forms of Live Project education.
• How has the emerging field of live project education developed to date?
• What can we learn from live projects about education, research, practice, society and the design process?
• How has our expanded knowledge progressed live project education?
The publications were produced at a time when the practices and boundaries of live project education were unclear and contested. There was also an increase in activity and dialogue that stimulated the emergence of live projects as a field of inquiry. Therefore the thesis includes a chronological literature review in order to capture an overview of activity at this time, thereby demonstrating how the publications fit within this context and how they contribute to knowledge and the development of the field.
The principal contributions to knowledge in the published work concern architectural education, research, practice, society, the design process and the relationship between them that is revealed by live project education. This critical appraisal articulates the ways in which the published work contributed to the development of live project education as a field of inquiry in itself. It evaluates the impact and influence of the published work on practice and inter-disciplinary pedagogy. It concludes with an assessment of the significance and limitations of the work, considering scope for further work that would enrich the development of the field.
This chapter describes the experimentation with and documentation and analysis of a diverse range of live projects, discussed in relation to Lave and Wenger’s theory of situated learning via a process of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger 1996) and findings from OB1 LIVE (Anderson & Priest 2013a), the authors’ programme of live projects. From this we devised an inclusive definition and method of typological analysis that revealed different live project models and previously concealed connections between them. This was tested, expanded and disseminated through our development of the Live Projects Network (Anderson & Priest 2013b), an online resource to recognise and connect the multiplicity of participants in live project practice.
This paper explores three connected questions: What differentiates and connects contemporary international live projects? What live project models and strategies have emerged to date? What influence are live projects having on architectural education, research and practice?
Ordering live projects by singular categories such as outcome or motive fails to acknowledge their complexity or to reveal new models and strategies. Quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrate that human and physical resources and contexts have the greatest influence on diversity of live project models and strategies. The expertise of the live project participants is capable of overcoming contextual resource limitations via design ingenuity. A Taxonomy has been developed to illustrate the relationship between these factors. This allows us to identify the ways in which live projects are influencing contemporary architectural education, research and practice.
This paper aims to reappraise the interplay of reality and imagination in architectural design as a cognitive process. There are two intentions: to reassess empirical responses and received wisdom about what is real and what is imagined in architectural design; and to reassess the perception of differences between imagination and reality occurring across education and practice.
Live Projects have become recognised as a complementary pedagogy in architectural education. Engagement has increased noticeably since the University of Auburn’s Rural Studio in Alabama gained prominence in the 1990’s. (Oppenheimer & Hursley, 2002). In this special issue the focus is upon Live Project activities and outcomes across different disciplines, as a means to facilitate new forms of discourse around their pedagogic integrity and reach. In this issue, Benedict Brown’s comprehensive long-range survey of Live Projects in UK education in the fields of medicine, planning, law and architecture, gives a particularly helpful overview of the way that different disciplinary contexts have provoked, stimulated and nurtured various forms of Live Project education.
Keywords: live projects, design studio, architectural pedagogy, public art, situated learning.
Paper available at: http://ingentaconnect.com/content/arched/char/2014/00000001/00000001
The paper tests and extends pedagogic theories raised by John Hejduk’s, Education of an Architect and explores the realisation of his theoretical projects into built works by reflecting on Writing the City, his student-built project in Stockholm in 1998. Live projects expose the social, cultural and political processes of both design and construction. We outline our pedagogical strategy to use live projects to situate the learning of students in a place that is relevant to their expectations of both architectural education and practice.
This creates a shift in teaching method from the contemporary student/tutor relationship. The ‘architectural agency’ requires tutors to negotiate with a client willing to give time and flexibility of expectation in return for the energy and originality of student designers. The tutor-as-agent is critical to the dynamic of this relationship, their skills being essential to support learning and creativity and meet the expectations of all participants.
Keywords:
Agency
Architectural Education
Architectural Practice
Collaborative Projects
Community Groups
Live Projects
Pedagogy
Architecture Connects, the 4th aae conference held at Oxford Brookes University on 6-9 September 2017 explored the co-creation of knowledge that is generated by architectural educational activity that happens beyond the confines of the University or the Discipline.
If making external connections was a methodology shared by the participants, then the questions that delegates were trying to answer together could be expressed most simply as: µwhat do we learn when we go outside?
Composed of the SEED Network, DesignBuildXchange, Live Projects Network, and Pacific Rim Community Design Network, each of these organizations in themselves reflect the greater scale and growing relationships needed to create truly sustainable projects and positive change in communities globally. In choosing to create a combined network of networks these four international networks acknowledge the growing global need for systemic change in the practices of design and an intent to build on the common ground they share. While each network has a unique focus, their mutuality supports the advancement of excellence in public interest design, a practice characterized by inclusive practices, ethical approaches, and sustainable methods.
This coalition of networks is committed to design practice, education, and research that improves social, economic, and environmental outcomes for its users. We promote local accountability and maintain a global perspective. Design for the Common Good connects designers, students, researchers, collaborators, and end-users by sharing best practices, stimulating and promoting a global dialogue.
Co-authors:
Lisa M. Abendroth, Jane Anderson, Bryan Bell, Simon Colwill, Peter Fattinger, Ursula Hartig, Jeffrey Hou, Sergio Palleroni, Nina Pawlicki, Colin Priest
architectural knowledge’.
The conference expanded the communities of practice in architectural education that were established
by previous aae conferences by developing the lively discourse that took place around the themes of social
engagement, live projects and design research.
The overall theme “Architecture Connects” explored positive dialogue and collaboration between architectural
educators, students, practitioners, researchers, educational bodies, local communities and other disciplines. By viewing architectural education as a linchpin between universities and society, the conference mission was to improve communication and contribute new knowledge that is of mutual benefit to all parties.
Hypothesis:
- Architectural live projects are an emerging method to draw research aims from real and complex contexts in order to generate relevant, dynamic and authentic research findings that cannot be achieved conventionally.
- Architectural live projects deploy research-led, trans-disciplinary, co-design, not-for-profit methodologies that are alternative to those used by conventional architectural practice and that respond to urgent issues such as sustainability, ethics, wellbeing and vulnerability (Anderson, 2014).
- Research activity is present in architectural live projects but is not recognised or disseminated as research effectively by the discipline, academia and research assessment bodies.
- Lack of recognition of live project research is due to various factors such as lack of appropriate and accepted methodologies and territories; complexity introduced by the inclusion of students in the process; lack of awareness of the research potential of live projects or an appropriate peer review system.
The live project took place over the course of two connected projects on the theme of “Healthy Buildings”, exploring the potential of architecture to promote wellbeing.
Following an analysis of the whole cohort of students’ proposals, it was found that there were recognisable patterns in the strategies that students employed in their designs in order to promote wellbeing. The Manifesto for Healthy Buildings summarises the ways that architecture, architectural design and architects can promote wellbeing.
Links were demonstrated between food and many other issues such as health, wealth, poverty, ethics, celebration,
nature, independence, age, education, social justice, nationality, migration, isolation, family and community.
Students made a film about the particular food culture activity or organisation that their group had identified as being significant. This was a very successful way to disseminate information about the depth and breadth of food culture activity in the city as well as highlighting just how differently each group could interpret and communicate the information that they had found.
Architectural Design Research methodologies offer possibilities for live project educators to tap the research potential of their work. As defined by Fraser, in this methodology “architects use the creation of projects…..as the central constituents in a process which also involves….more generalised research activities” (2013, p.1).
Live Projects and Design Research are both relatively recent innovations in the discipline of architecture. This workshop explores their potential to work together to create innovative and authentic research outcomes and enrich the learning and research derived from live project activity.
This paper takes the position that any portrayal of design studio and DesignBuild projects as a dichotomy is misleading. Both are predictive pursuits that use imagination to engage with the reality of the future context that they hope to occupy. Through analysis of two case studies carried out at Oxford Brookes School of Architecture for a community archaeological group and The Story Museum, Oxford (Anderson and Priest, 2012), the paper discusses the particular relationship between reality and imagination that is stimulated by a live project design process and the benefits to learning that emerge when the thresholds between imagination and reality are articulated. This is related to learning theory via Vygotsky’s (1996) insights into human development of concrete and abstract thought within a social world.
Students are highly motivated by live projects (Morrow, Parnell and Torrington, 2004). The paper hypothesises that students are stimulated by the immersive experience of the authentic context in which they are active. Although the context is certainly authentic, the paper analyses the component parts of a DesignBuild project to demonstrate how it differs from both professional practice and the design studio. With reference to Lave and Wenger’s (1995, p. 54) writing on the “sociocultural character” of learning, the paper describes the significance of what the author terms the Dual Context of Live Project Pedagogy. This dual context consists of the educational institution and the world. It shapes the experience of DesignBuild projects and alters the relationship between reality and imagination that exists in each context when they are separated.
The significance of experience and the ways that students are able to access it to develop their learning and creativity is discussed in relation to John Hejduk’s (1987) subtle reflections on imagination and reality and the manifestation of this in his students’ DesignBuild projects. A Dual-context and Experience-led design process is proposed that makes explicit the interaction between imagination and reality within architectural DesignBuild and live project pedagogy.
Paper available at: https://aaeconference2014.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/aae_proceedings_final.pdf
This paper encapsulates a series of enquiries into the relationship between reality and imagination, fact and fiction in architectural design. This exploration is made with reference to the work of architect, writer, artist and poet, John Hedjuk, and his response to what he termed the “so called real world”. (Hejduk, 1985, p.35 in Linder, 2004, p.181)
Between 2011 and 2012 OB1 LIVE (Oxford Brookes University year one architecture and interior architecture students) collaborated with The Story Museum, Oxford to find ways for the museum to operate in their vacant building prior to refurbishment. This sparked two parallel and reciprocal journeys as both parties investigated ways to construct imaginative space and learned to express an imagined reality. We analyse the works that resulted from this collaboration: two connected design projects, a book, Fabrications (2011) and an installation for the exhibition, Other Worlds (2012). We also examine a similar range of works by John Hejduk: his proposals for the Lancaster / Hanover Masques (1992) and The Collapse of Time (1987), the book, Education of an Architect (1988) and the installation constructed for Writing the city, Stockholm, 1998.
Implementing stories as a tool for design, students wrote flash-fictional stories unfolding in The Story Museum’s empty former telephone exchange. These stories imagined transformations of the layered histories of the space and also became the conceptual foundations for a live project, named Fabrications. Inspired by a dictionary definition given by Hedjuk to his year one students of architecture where he drew attention to the unexpected etymological connection between the reality of building (“to fabricate”) and the invention of a lie or a story (“to fabricate”), our subsequent prototypical environments were designed for (mis)reading with the building. Adapting found objects, the Fabrications ranged from interactive shelves to hybrid chairs. The third project jumped forward to a speculative future with designs for a storytelling tower. The final phase of the project undertaken with writer and architect, Mike Halliwell, translated the corporeal architectural models of these towers into an expression of narrative space. Hejduk’s drawings for the Lancaster / Hanover Masques described as “aparitions” (Hejduk, 1992, p.13) informed the curation of an installation which sought to negate their physical presence in order to return them to their fictional state.
Our journey to traverse the slippery territory between fact and fiction is used here to explore Hejduk’s The Collapse of Time and the Lancaster / Hanover Masques where he raises the issue for the architect-writer of the inter-changeability of subject and object between buildings and occupants.
We seek to articulate the shifts between imagination and reality that the architect makes during the design process. We identify the inter-relationship between language, time and inhabitation as being key to the duality of fact and fiction in architecture. We acknowledge that the (un)reality of the condition of designing as a student of architecture brings an added complexity, bringing new insights into the relationship between fact and fiction in the process of architectural design and construction.
"""
In 1986 Glasgow School of Art established an Environmental Art Department led by David Harding. In 1989 his teaching partner, Sam Ainslie took over the Master of Fine Arts. The paper describes the influence of these courses on the practice of their graduates such as Simon Starling, Richard Wright and Douglas Gordon. The premise of the undergraduate course was that students would create work in the public domain and negotiate permission for use of the site with the owner. The paper explains why these projects can be viewed as live projects and discusses the relevance to architectural educators of the courses’ content and structure.
Through analysis of a series of projects commissioned by local community clients and designed by students of architecture, the author in collaboration with Colin Priest, has arrived at a definition of what makes a project “live”, identified the constituent parts of a live project and devised a methodology to plan and understand learning outside the Design Studio. This information is being shared via an online Live Projects Network. With reference to Lave and Wenger’s theory of situated learning as “legitimate peripheral participation”, the paper will demonstrate how learning derived from live projects can be understood and valued.
The paper also acknowledges the strong pull of the Design Studio and the importance of the educational institution in legitimising a project as “live”. Through our definition and analysis of live projects, an expanded range of social, economic, political, cultural and educational endeavour, as exemplified by the work of Harding and Ainslie, can be seen to be connected and relevant when establishing a critical view of contemporary live project practice. The paper describes the liberated pedagogy made possible by this position.
Key words:
Studio Method
Studio Culture
Collaboration
Studio Content
Site
Live projects
Studio Context
Studio in Practice""
From their experience of running OB1 LIVE, a programme of live projects for community based clients and conceived for year one students of architecture and interior architecture at Oxford Brookes University, the authors describe their work to explore beyond the boundary of live projects as “live build” only. The paper discusses notions of learning via “legitimate peripheral participation” as defined by Lave and Wenger, exploring Live Projects as a means to engage students in a nexus of “sociocultural practices of a community”. The authors propose an inclusive definition of the ingredients that make a project “live” as well as a Flexible Methodology that they have established to expand the life of live projects across a school of architecture, starting from day one of year one. The Flexible Methodology also extends the employment of live projects throughout the life of the project itself, from pre-occupancy studies to construction and beyond. Through these experiments, the paper will describe the ways in which live projects can be used to teach skills normally taught within the design studio such as conceptual thinking and also to enable involvement of students with project stages such as occupation that are not normally covered by design studio briefs.
Keywords:
community-engaged scholarship, professionalism and ethics, critical citizenship, education futures, deep and surface learning, live project methodologies and paradigms, architecture curriculum
The Story Museum invited OB1 LIVE (Oxford Brookes University year one architecture and interior architecture students) to collaborate on a project to help them occupy their vacant building prior to refurbishment. This sparked two parallel and reciprocal journeys as both parties investigated ways to construct imaginative space and learned to express an imagined reality.
Implementing stories as a tool for design, students were asked to write a flash-fictional story unfolding in the Museum’s empty former telephone exchange. These stories amassed a chronicle of imagined transformation for reading space and its associated histories and the conceptual foundations for the ensuing project, named “Fabrications”. This title was inspired by a dictionary definition given by John Hedjuk to his year one students of architecture where he drew attention to the unexpected etymological connection between the reality of building (“to fabricate”) and the invention of a lie or a story (“to fabricate”). The subsequent prototypical environments were designed for (mis)reading with the building, superimposing serendipitous narratives. Using everyday and recycled materials Fabrications ranged from interactive shelves to hybrid chairs. The next project then jumped forward to an anticipated but more uncertain and speculative future with designs for a storytelling tower that focused on the experience of the narrative journey. Lessons learned from Hejduk’s Lancaster / Hanover Masques (pictured right) will inform the translation of architectural models of these towers into an expression of narrative space, negating their physical presence to return them to their fictional state as they are exhibited in The Story Museum which also embodies this state as it awaits occupation.
Keywords:
Textual spaces / spatial texts
Literature and architectural discourse
The language of built space / narrative and architecture
Writers that build"
The paper tests and extends pedagogic theories raised by John Hejduk’s, “Education of an Architect” where rigid exercises to train year one students are described such as the “nine square grid problem”. By uncovering scope for architectural activity beyond studio-bound abstraction, operating in real contexts before a conventional project would be deemed to begin (pre-work stage A), OB1 LIVE has discovered a place for year one students of architecture to practice in a compressed manner that is compatible with the pace of curricular design studio education.
Common ground is found with Hejduk by analysing the realisation of his theoretical projects into built works. By remaining focussed on the exploration of ideas, the process of design and the process of construction are exposed to clients, users and students. The social, cultural and political issues of working with community-based groups and the results of engagement of students with these realities are put into context by reference to Hejduk’s “Retreat Masque” constructed as part of the “Writing the City” student-built project in Stockholm in 1998.
The OB1 LIVE programme demonstrates what action is possible when a system that we term “tolerant exchange” is established between educational and voluntary groups. This is created by a client willing to give time and flexibility of expectation in return for the energy and originality of student designers. We identify this as a shift in teaching method from the traditional apprentice / practitioner bond or student / tutor relationship to a new “apprentice / client bond”. Both groups are vulnerable so we diagrammatically describe an “agency” method for the “teacher / practitioner” to manage risk in a way that does not stifle learning and creativity or disappoint client expectation.
- Design research
- Inter-disciplinary / collaborative research
- Pedagogical research;
- Research into the emerging field of live projects itself.
It concludes with a proposal to help live project practitioners express their findings as research and to encourage and support them to do so.
Sergio Palleroni and Jane Anderson offer a history of the collective effort to establish a global network of social design teachers and practitioners.
Interview conducted by Eric Cesal and Emiliano Gandolfi on 5 April 2018.
Interviews conducted by James Benedict Brown during the conference.
15 February – 2 March 2019. Bury Knowle Library, North Place, Oxford, OX3 9HY
Etheldreda Janet Laing (1872-1960) was a pioneer of colour photography who lived and worked at Bury Knowle House from 1899 to 1923.
From 1908, Laing photographed her daughters, Janet and Iris, in Bury Knowle’s garden and house using the newly-invented Autochrome colour process. Her original photographic plates form part of the Science Museum’s collection.
This exhibition brings together some of Laing’s photographs of Bury Knowle that were taken c.1908 with contemporary images of the park and house. This project has been undertaken by students at the Oxford Brookes School of Architecture. Local people who use the park and library were shown the Etheldreda Laing’s images and their photographs were taken in the same locations as the originals. Their views on why they use the park and library were also gathered. The project aims to share knowledge about Etheldreda Laing’s pioneering work at Bury Knowle and to communicate the value of the Park and Library to local people today.
Jane Anderson, Ralph Saull and OB1 LIVE.
Madame Rosina can describe your live project using her powers of empirical research. How long is your live line? She can show you how you are connected to others you may never have met, through her taxonomy of live projects.
Are you shy and retiring? Do you enjoy spending your time in the country, making things? Perhaps you are a Woodland Creature.
Or perhaps you are outspoken and gregarious. At home out on the street drawing attention to issues that your neighbours prefer to ignore? You might be an Artist Activist.