This article was downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara]On 15 September 2013 At 1153Publisher Taylor amp FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

CoDesign International Journal ofCoCreation in Design and the ArtsPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloincdn20

Performing architecture Talkinglsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo into beingArlene Oak aa Department of Human Ecology University of Alberta EdmontonCanadaPublished online 21 Feb 2009

To cite this article Arlene Oak (2009) Performing architecture Talking lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquointo being CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 51 51-63 DOI10108015710880802518054

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg10108015710880802518054

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Performing architecture Talking lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo into being

Arlene Oak

Department of Human Ecology University of Alberta Edmonton Canada

(Received in final form 30 September 2008)

This paper explores how the roles or social categories lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo areperformed by participants as they meet to talk about the design of a crematoriumThe analytic framework through which the interaction is studied is MembershipCategorisation Analysis (MCA) By attending to the participantsrsquo talk throughthe perspectives of MCA we can see how questions and answers attributions ofbuilding ownership and assessments of the building are enacted in ways thatenable the participants to competently perform as lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo Thus aswell as the participantsrsquo interaction helping to shape the actual form of thebuilding it also helps to shape and perpetuate ideas concerning what it is to lsquodorsquoarchitecture

Keywords architecture conversation analysis design practice membershipcategorisation analysis

1 Introduction

This paper explores how the roles of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo are performed in ameeting between an architect and two clients (although this paper primarilyconsiders the interactions that occur between the architect and one client) Ratherthan view the roles of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo as unproblematic categories that may beapplied to the meetingrsquos participants this paper views these roles as the participantsorient to and perform them through their talk What do the participants say toadequately and convincingly perform as an architect and a client and how do theysay it How does their interaction help to create the lsquodoingrsquo of architecture (Ameeting about designing a building is part of the architectural process and thereforeis part of lsquodoingrsquo architecture)

While the participants perform other role-specific behaviours (such as gesturingat drawings) this paper focuses solely on the participantsrsquo talk to explore howinteraction allows the speakers to organise their social roles and get things done Inthis case one of the things that is done is the designing of a crematorium but alsothe participants accomplish the presentation of themselves as relevant participants inthe design process Accordingly this paper deals with talk not as the straightfor-ward reporting of events but as lsquodiscoursersquo that involves participants in networks ofsocial and moral obligation (Shotter 1981) Therefore underpinning this work is aWittgensteinian (2001) perspective in which lsquothe participants [in talk] play to some

Email aoakualbertaca

CoDesign

Vol 5 No 1 March 2009 51ndash63

ISSN 1571-0882 printISSN 1745-3755 online

2009 Taylor amp Francis

DOI 10108015710880802518054

httpwwwinformaworldcom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

tacit set of rules about what is permissible and obligatory in the linguistic interactionrsquo(Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 183) In terms of its affiliation with design research thispaper relates to prior scholarship in areas associated with design and collaboration(eg Cross et al 1996 Scrivener et al 2000 and the journals CoDesign and DesignStudies especially 2007 283 on lsquoParticipatory Designrsquo) Also this paper relates towork done on designrsquos relationship to interaction (eg Cross and Clayburn Cross1995 Fleming 1998 Lloyd and Busby 2001 Luck 2007 Oak 2000 2001 2006Stumpf and McDonnell 2002 and in this special issue Glock Luck Mathews andMcDonnell)

The perspectives of this paper primarily stem from conversation analysis (Sacks1992) and ethnomethodology (Heritage 1984) which are concerned with howmembers orient to each other and make sense of each otherrsquos actions in specificcontexts This paper is especially influenced by the ethnomethodologically informedwork of sociologist Harvey Sacks (1992) and his modes for analysing conversationparticularly his approach now known as Membership Categorisation Analysis(MCA) (1992 Vol I p 40) Membership Categorisation Analysis considers both thedetails of talkrsquos structure (such as turn-taking) while also considering howparticipantsrsquo talk may be associated with particular social roles or lsquomembershipcategoriesrsquo (Psathas 1999 Housley and Fitzgerald 2002) Broadly speakingmembership categories refer to how people are named in ways that give relevanceand coherence to a particular situation of interaction Membership categories maybe broad (eg manwoman) or more narrowly construed what is at issue in MCA ishow categories have relevance for the interaction under investigation Therefore inthe meeting between the architect and client discussed here (subsequently referred toas lsquoA1rsquo) when the architect says lsquoitrsquos a dream come true for an architect to do such aproject so Irsquom very excited by itrsquo (A1 73ndash74) he positions his role as lsquoarchitectrsquo asrelevantly related to action (lsquoto do such a projectrsquo) enthusiasm (lsquodream come truersquo)and emotion (lsquoexcitedrsquo)

As an analytic approach MCA has especially influenced scholars who study talkat work wherein speakers are in institution-based roles that may impact upon thetopics and orderliness of the interaction (Boden and Zimmerman 1991 Drew andHeritage 1997 Housley 2006) Since the talk between the architect and the client inmeeting A1 takes place in the context of their work-based roles it is pertinent toconsider their interaction through MCA in order to better understand how thecategories of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo are performed in the specific setting of theirmeeting What is investigated here are some of the ways in which their interactionallows the roles of architect and client to be lsquoultimately and accountably talked intobeingrsquo (Heritage 1984 p 290 emphasis in original) The main issue discussed in thispaper is how participants orient to the categories of architect and client and how thisorientation impacts upon the structure of their talk especially their performance ofquestions and answers Also considered although more briefly are how someattributions of building lsquoownershiprsquo are made and how the delivery of some negativeassessments is managed Finally this paper outlines how the participantsrsquo talk mayrelate to some generally held beliefs about the practice of architecture

2 Background information The roles of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo

The materials provided to the DTRS7 analysts did not include recordings ortranscriptions of the first meeting between the architect and his clients Howeverparticipants in DTRS7 were provided with a video of a meeting between the architect

52 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and a representative of DTRS7 wherein the architect outlined the background to thecrematorium project (A summary of the DTRS7 data set is provided in the editorsrsquointroduction to this special issue of CoDesign) Some of the points that he makes inthis lsquobackground-informationrsquo video are relevant to his perceptions of his role asarchitect and so will be briefly outlined here prior to a more in-depth discussion ofthe architectclient interaction that occurs in meeting A1

In the background information video the architect talks about the early stages ofthe crematorium project For instance he expresses some frustration with the initialbrief for the project noting that it was lsquovery simplersquo (537) and that lsquowe really wanta lot more informationrsquo (539) (Numbers in brackets indicate the minutes andseconds in which the talk occurred in the video) The architect also mentions that hewent on to develop a more successful brief with the clients although he also statesthat within the collaborative process he made several decisions himself (eg lsquoI wasdetermined that this should be a concrete buildingrsquo (2139)) As the architect talksabout the early stages of the crematoriumrsquos design it is apparent that he waspersonally highly invested in the project For instance he states that lsquoof course itrsquosevery architectrsquos dreamrsquo (253) to work on such a building Also he notes that forhim the project lsquowas a dream come truersquo (259) and lsquoamazingrsquo (303) Further hesays from lsquovery early onrsquo (916) he had a particular idea for lsquowhat sort of form thebuilding should takersquo (817) that of Louis Khanrsquos Kimbell Art Museum in Texas(which the architect had visited in 1993) In the background information video thearchitect also talks about how he showed images of the Kimbell Art Museum to hisclients at an early meeting and he lsquocouldnrsquot believe it they were sold on the conceptvirtually straight awayrsquo (941)

The architectrsquos vision of a link between the Kimbell Art Museum and thecrematorium is accepted by his clients and so he is able to follow his inspirationwhich as the lsquostarting point for the architect [as] a way in to the problemrsquo (Darke1984 p 181) could be considered a lsquoprimary generatorrsquo for the project A primarygenerator is lsquoan article of faith on the part of the architect a designer-imposedconstraintrsquo (1984 p 181) that is lsquostrongly valued and self-imposedrsquo (1984 p 186)That the architect has created a personal link between the crematorium and theKimbell is evident from how he associates the project with his memories of visitingthe Kimbell (lsquothe whole feeling of it [the Kimbell] had never left me since visitingrsquo(1140)) The architect thus indicates that it is appropriate for him to associate hisprofessional work with memory emotion and embodied experience (Gero 1999Downing 2000 Solovyova 2003) Thus the architectrsquos talk in the background videoestablishes his decision-making capabilities and personal engagement with thebuilding as well as his recognition of the significance of the clients since as he notesif they had not been lsquosold on the conceptrsquo he may have had to design differentlyHaving outlined the architectrsquos perspective on some issues pertaining to the roles oflsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo as expressed in the background video to the crematoriumrsquosdesign let us now turn to some talk from meeting A1 to consider how the architectand his client (and less so the other client present at the meeting) use talk to managetheir relationship(s) and perform architecture

3 Meeting structure

As outlined above this paper focuses on membership categories and how theyconstrain and afford certain forms of behaviour including certain forms of talk Forexample the data indicate that the architect perceives his role as one in which it is

CoDesign 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

acceptable behaviour for him to define the nature of the meeting (lsquoIrsquoll look forwardto hearing the feedback because thatrsquos the purpose of the meetingrsquo (A1 21ndash22))Indeed as we see in Extract 1 the architect frames the meeting as a way to gatherfeedback from several project stakeholders including funeral directors and otherbuilding users However although the client indicates that she has consulted otherswidely (lsquoeveryone thatrsquos come in has been dragged inrsquo (A1 83)) she does not actuallytell the architect what others have said (this issue is considered later in this paper)

4 Questions and answers in the performance of architecture

Although the architect seizes the initiative in defining the purpose of the meeting as afeedback session feedback from others is not forthcoming and the architect insteadseeks information by asking questions of the clients at hand The architect drawsattention to the appropriateness of his role as inquisitor by saying lsquothe first query Ihaversquo (A1 91) thereby implying that he will have several others From this point ona pattern of interaction develops in which questions and answers are significant tothe conduct of the meeting (particularly its first half) In MCA (as in ConversationAnalysis more broadly) questions and answers are understood as a type oflsquoadjacency pairrsquo that is a form of talk wherein one part (a question) is followed by asecond part (an answer) (Sacks 1992 Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998) While apparentlystraightforward in terms of their structure the asking and answering of questions issignificant in interaction particularly in institution-based talk because the speakerwho does the asking constrains the person asked to answer thereby creating apotential difference in power Indeed much of the way that talk can be identified asoccurring within an institutional setting is through considering how questions andanswers are managed For instance interaction between doctors and patients orteachers and students is identifiable as occurring within lsquomedicinersquo or lsquoeducationrsquo inpart because certain parties can and do ask questions of the other in particular ways(and in ways that differ from the usually more equally distributed asking andanswering of questions that characterises ordinary conversation between peers(Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998 149ndash154 Heritage 2005 pp 103ndash148)) In meeting A1the manner in which the architect asks questions and the topics that he asks aboutindicate that he seeks particular types of answers that he can use in designing thebuilding accordingly meeting A1 proceeds within the institution of lsquoarchitecturersquo ormore broadly lsquodesign practicersquo However as we will see the sort of information thatthe architect seeks is not always directly forthcoming from his client

41 Questions and answers clarity and ambiguity

In Extract 2 the architect seeks information concerning room size data that can betranslated into a drawing and then ultimately into the buildingrsquos final form Despite

Extract 1 Defining the meeting

77 Arch we thought it would be78 a very good idea to have another meeting to update everybody as to79 where wersquove got to and to receive your feedback because the last time80 you and I met - you said you were interested in talking to funeral81 directors and so on and so forth obtain feedback from people whorsquod be82 using the building83 Client which is everyone thatrsquos come in has been dragged in to show even84 my mumrsquos had a look [laughs]

54 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the clarity of his first question and despite it being rephrased as a recommendation(A1 125) the clientrsquos replies do not clearly answer the architectrsquos questions about theappropriate dimensions for the waiting room

In this extract the architect makes a clear request for information about room size(A1 117ndash118) but the clientrsquos answer leaves open for interpretation exactly how bigthe new waiting room should be Later when the architect suggests possibledimensions for the room (A1 126ndash128) the clientrsquos reply is also ambiguous the currentroom may or may not be big enough (A1 129ndash141) Eventually the client says that shewould like the waiting room lsquoa little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because it is awasted space most of the dayrsquo (A1 158ndash159) The architect responds to the clientrsquosambivalent comments by choosing dimensions (lsquoa couple of metresrsquo (A1 160)) andwriting on the drawing minuting their talk as a design decision made (see the secondmeeting A2 lsquoone of the items on the minutes last time was to increase the size of thewaiting roomrsquo (A2 49ndash50)) However despite the architectrsquos decision to extend thespace the client has not actually made a definitive response about her preferred roomsize Instead she answers his last question about waiting-room size (A1 161ndash162) bychanging the topic to suggest seating outside (A1 163ndash164)

In the meeting a turn-taking format arises in which the architect tends to askquestions about the buildingrsquos formal qualities such as room dimensions spatialarrangements andor amenities with the clientrsquos responses delivering somewhatambiguous accounts in reply This especially happens in the first half of the firstmeeting For example the talk in Extract 3 follows a similar pattern to that outlinedin Extract 2 wherein direct questions are answered by information-rich accounts

Extract 2 Questions and answers

117 Arch so my first question to you is is the waiting the room big enough and118 would you like us to increase it119 Client I would say although the time spent sitting and waiting might not be120 very long and eight seats seems enough at some stages even our waiting121 room is too big so its slightly Irsquom also thinking of the fact that if wersquove122 got a flow of people walking through that then restricts us we canrsquot put123 seats through that because in a sense we need to keep an access open124 and so the seating will be against the wall125 Arch what Irsquod recommend is that we look at doing something like that126 extending it which will give you seating areas here seating areas here127 seating areas here as well as here and here which effectively will double128 the seating capacity from what I was just saying129 Client yes I mean people waiting for cabs or for people waiting to be picked130 up as well for services you know it might not sort of eight might be more131 than enough for funerals for the majority of the time but I would think132 itrsquos nice to give them a bit more space as well because we might get133 people waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral erm and people at the ten134 orsquoclock perhaps arrive and so they keep in their little groups they donrsquot135 want to mix with other people so the feeling of keeping them segregated136 just because they donrsquot know the other people might also be there and we137 do have problems with families like that during funerals

(two lines excised for brevity)140 Client you know yoursquod think it would bring141 them together but it actually makes it worse142 Arch really gosh

(fifteen lines excised for brevity)158 Client so Irsquod like it a little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because there is it is159 a wasted space most of the day really160 Arch yeah well I would have thought another couple of metres on there [writes161 on drawing] would do the trick so shall we agree a two metre extension162 yes or thereabouts hmm163 Client I mean the other suggestion that perhaps I could make at this stage164 would be perhaps for a small amount of outside seating

CoDesign 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

tacit set of rules about what is permissible and obligatory in the linguistic interactionrsquo(Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 183) In terms of its affiliation with design research thispaper relates to prior scholarship in areas associated with design and collaboration(eg Cross et al 1996 Scrivener et al 2000 and the journals CoDesign and DesignStudies especially 2007 283 on lsquoParticipatory Designrsquo) Also this paper relates towork done on designrsquos relationship to interaction (eg Cross and Clayburn Cross1995 Fleming 1998 Lloyd and Busby 2001 Luck 2007 Oak 2000 2001 2006Stumpf and McDonnell 2002 and in this special issue Glock Luck Mathews andMcDonnell)

The perspectives of this paper primarily stem from conversation analysis (Sacks1992) and ethnomethodology (Heritage 1984) which are concerned with howmembers orient to each other and make sense of each otherrsquos actions in specificcontexts This paper is especially influenced by the ethnomethodologically informedwork of sociologist Harvey Sacks (1992) and his modes for analysing conversationparticularly his approach now known as Membership Categorisation Analysis(MCA) (1992 Vol I p 40) Membership Categorisation Analysis considers both thedetails of talkrsquos structure (such as turn-taking) while also considering howparticipantsrsquo talk may be associated with particular social roles or lsquomembershipcategoriesrsquo (Psathas 1999 Housley and Fitzgerald 2002) Broadly speakingmembership categories refer to how people are named in ways that give relevanceand coherence to a particular situation of interaction Membership categories maybe broad (eg manwoman) or more narrowly construed what is at issue in MCA ishow categories have relevance for the interaction under investigation Therefore inthe meeting between the architect and client discussed here (subsequently referred toas lsquoA1rsquo) when the architect says lsquoitrsquos a dream come true for an architect to do such aproject so Irsquom very excited by itrsquo (A1 73ndash74) he positions his role as lsquoarchitectrsquo asrelevantly related to action (lsquoto do such a projectrsquo) enthusiasm (lsquodream come truersquo)and emotion (lsquoexcitedrsquo)

As an analytic approach MCA has especially influenced scholars who study talkat work wherein speakers are in institution-based roles that may impact upon thetopics and orderliness of the interaction (Boden and Zimmerman 1991 Drew andHeritage 1997 Housley 2006) Since the talk between the architect and the client inmeeting A1 takes place in the context of their work-based roles it is pertinent toconsider their interaction through MCA in order to better understand how thecategories of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo are performed in the specific setting of theirmeeting What is investigated here are some of the ways in which their interactionallows the roles of architect and client to be lsquoultimately and accountably talked intobeingrsquo (Heritage 1984 p 290 emphasis in original) The main issue discussed in thispaper is how participants orient to the categories of architect and client and how thisorientation impacts upon the structure of their talk especially their performance ofquestions and answers Also considered although more briefly are how someattributions of building lsquoownershiprsquo are made and how the delivery of some negativeassessments is managed Finally this paper outlines how the participantsrsquo talk mayrelate to some generally held beliefs about the practice of architecture

2 Background information The roles of lsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo

The materials provided to the DTRS7 analysts did not include recordings ortranscriptions of the first meeting between the architect and his clients Howeverparticipants in DTRS7 were provided with a video of a meeting between the architect

52 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and a representative of DTRS7 wherein the architect outlined the background to thecrematorium project (A summary of the DTRS7 data set is provided in the editorsrsquointroduction to this special issue of CoDesign) Some of the points that he makes inthis lsquobackground-informationrsquo video are relevant to his perceptions of his role asarchitect and so will be briefly outlined here prior to a more in-depth discussion ofthe architectclient interaction that occurs in meeting A1

In the background information video the architect talks about the early stages ofthe crematorium project For instance he expresses some frustration with the initialbrief for the project noting that it was lsquovery simplersquo (537) and that lsquowe really wanta lot more informationrsquo (539) (Numbers in brackets indicate the minutes andseconds in which the talk occurred in the video) The architect also mentions that hewent on to develop a more successful brief with the clients although he also statesthat within the collaborative process he made several decisions himself (eg lsquoI wasdetermined that this should be a concrete buildingrsquo (2139)) As the architect talksabout the early stages of the crematoriumrsquos design it is apparent that he waspersonally highly invested in the project For instance he states that lsquoof course itrsquosevery architectrsquos dreamrsquo (253) to work on such a building Also he notes that forhim the project lsquowas a dream come truersquo (259) and lsquoamazingrsquo (303) Further hesays from lsquovery early onrsquo (916) he had a particular idea for lsquowhat sort of form thebuilding should takersquo (817) that of Louis Khanrsquos Kimbell Art Museum in Texas(which the architect had visited in 1993) In the background information video thearchitect also talks about how he showed images of the Kimbell Art Museum to hisclients at an early meeting and he lsquocouldnrsquot believe it they were sold on the conceptvirtually straight awayrsquo (941)

The architectrsquos vision of a link between the Kimbell Art Museum and thecrematorium is accepted by his clients and so he is able to follow his inspirationwhich as the lsquostarting point for the architect [as] a way in to the problemrsquo (Darke1984 p 181) could be considered a lsquoprimary generatorrsquo for the project A primarygenerator is lsquoan article of faith on the part of the architect a designer-imposedconstraintrsquo (1984 p 181) that is lsquostrongly valued and self-imposedrsquo (1984 p 186)That the architect has created a personal link between the crematorium and theKimbell is evident from how he associates the project with his memories of visitingthe Kimbell (lsquothe whole feeling of it [the Kimbell] had never left me since visitingrsquo(1140)) The architect thus indicates that it is appropriate for him to associate hisprofessional work with memory emotion and embodied experience (Gero 1999Downing 2000 Solovyova 2003) Thus the architectrsquos talk in the background videoestablishes his decision-making capabilities and personal engagement with thebuilding as well as his recognition of the significance of the clients since as he notesif they had not been lsquosold on the conceptrsquo he may have had to design differentlyHaving outlined the architectrsquos perspective on some issues pertaining to the roles oflsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo as expressed in the background video to the crematoriumrsquosdesign let us now turn to some talk from meeting A1 to consider how the architectand his client (and less so the other client present at the meeting) use talk to managetheir relationship(s) and perform architecture

3 Meeting structure

As outlined above this paper focuses on membership categories and how theyconstrain and afford certain forms of behaviour including certain forms of talk Forexample the data indicate that the architect perceives his role as one in which it is

CoDesign 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

acceptable behaviour for him to define the nature of the meeting (lsquoIrsquoll look forwardto hearing the feedback because thatrsquos the purpose of the meetingrsquo (A1 21ndash22))Indeed as we see in Extract 1 the architect frames the meeting as a way to gatherfeedback from several project stakeholders including funeral directors and otherbuilding users However although the client indicates that she has consulted otherswidely (lsquoeveryone thatrsquos come in has been dragged inrsquo (A1 83)) she does not actuallytell the architect what others have said (this issue is considered later in this paper)

4 Questions and answers in the performance of architecture

Although the architect seizes the initiative in defining the purpose of the meeting as afeedback session feedback from others is not forthcoming and the architect insteadseeks information by asking questions of the clients at hand The architect drawsattention to the appropriateness of his role as inquisitor by saying lsquothe first query Ihaversquo (A1 91) thereby implying that he will have several others From this point ona pattern of interaction develops in which questions and answers are significant tothe conduct of the meeting (particularly its first half) In MCA (as in ConversationAnalysis more broadly) questions and answers are understood as a type oflsquoadjacency pairrsquo that is a form of talk wherein one part (a question) is followed by asecond part (an answer) (Sacks 1992 Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998) While apparentlystraightforward in terms of their structure the asking and answering of questions issignificant in interaction particularly in institution-based talk because the speakerwho does the asking constrains the person asked to answer thereby creating apotential difference in power Indeed much of the way that talk can be identified asoccurring within an institutional setting is through considering how questions andanswers are managed For instance interaction between doctors and patients orteachers and students is identifiable as occurring within lsquomedicinersquo or lsquoeducationrsquo inpart because certain parties can and do ask questions of the other in particular ways(and in ways that differ from the usually more equally distributed asking andanswering of questions that characterises ordinary conversation between peers(Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998 149ndash154 Heritage 2005 pp 103ndash148)) In meeting A1the manner in which the architect asks questions and the topics that he asks aboutindicate that he seeks particular types of answers that he can use in designing thebuilding accordingly meeting A1 proceeds within the institution of lsquoarchitecturersquo ormore broadly lsquodesign practicersquo However as we will see the sort of information thatthe architect seeks is not always directly forthcoming from his client

41 Questions and answers clarity and ambiguity

In Extract 2 the architect seeks information concerning room size data that can betranslated into a drawing and then ultimately into the buildingrsquos final form Despite

Extract 1 Defining the meeting

77 Arch we thought it would be78 a very good idea to have another meeting to update everybody as to79 where wersquove got to and to receive your feedback because the last time80 you and I met - you said you were interested in talking to funeral81 directors and so on and so forth obtain feedback from people whorsquod be82 using the building83 Client which is everyone thatrsquos come in has been dragged in to show even84 my mumrsquos had a look [laughs]

54 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the clarity of his first question and despite it being rephrased as a recommendation(A1 125) the clientrsquos replies do not clearly answer the architectrsquos questions about theappropriate dimensions for the waiting room

In this extract the architect makes a clear request for information about room size(A1 117ndash118) but the clientrsquos answer leaves open for interpretation exactly how bigthe new waiting room should be Later when the architect suggests possibledimensions for the room (A1 126ndash128) the clientrsquos reply is also ambiguous the currentroom may or may not be big enough (A1 129ndash141) Eventually the client says that shewould like the waiting room lsquoa little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because it is awasted space most of the dayrsquo (A1 158ndash159) The architect responds to the clientrsquosambivalent comments by choosing dimensions (lsquoa couple of metresrsquo (A1 160)) andwriting on the drawing minuting their talk as a design decision made (see the secondmeeting A2 lsquoone of the items on the minutes last time was to increase the size of thewaiting roomrsquo (A2 49ndash50)) However despite the architectrsquos decision to extend thespace the client has not actually made a definitive response about her preferred roomsize Instead she answers his last question about waiting-room size (A1 161ndash162) bychanging the topic to suggest seating outside (A1 163ndash164)

In the meeting a turn-taking format arises in which the architect tends to askquestions about the buildingrsquos formal qualities such as room dimensions spatialarrangements andor amenities with the clientrsquos responses delivering somewhatambiguous accounts in reply This especially happens in the first half of the firstmeeting For example the talk in Extract 3 follows a similar pattern to that outlinedin Extract 2 wherein direct questions are answered by information-rich accounts

Extract 2 Questions and answers

117 Arch so my first question to you is is the waiting the room big enough and118 would you like us to increase it119 Client I would say although the time spent sitting and waiting might not be120 very long and eight seats seems enough at some stages even our waiting121 room is too big so its slightly Irsquom also thinking of the fact that if wersquove122 got a flow of people walking through that then restricts us we canrsquot put123 seats through that because in a sense we need to keep an access open124 and so the seating will be against the wall125 Arch what Irsquod recommend is that we look at doing something like that126 extending it which will give you seating areas here seating areas here127 seating areas here as well as here and here which effectively will double128 the seating capacity from what I was just saying129 Client yes I mean people waiting for cabs or for people waiting to be picked130 up as well for services you know it might not sort of eight might be more131 than enough for funerals for the majority of the time but I would think132 itrsquos nice to give them a bit more space as well because we might get133 people waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral erm and people at the ten134 orsquoclock perhaps arrive and so they keep in their little groups they donrsquot135 want to mix with other people so the feeling of keeping them segregated136 just because they donrsquot know the other people might also be there and we137 do have problems with families like that during funerals

(two lines excised for brevity)140 Client you know yoursquod think it would bring141 them together but it actually makes it worse142 Arch really gosh

(fifteen lines excised for brevity)158 Client so Irsquod like it a little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because there is it is159 a wasted space most of the day really160 Arch yeah well I would have thought another couple of metres on there [writes161 on drawing] would do the trick so shall we agree a two metre extension162 yes or thereabouts hmm163 Client I mean the other suggestion that perhaps I could make at this stage164 would be perhaps for a small amount of outside seating

CoDesign 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and a representative of DTRS7 wherein the architect outlined the background to thecrematorium project (A summary of the DTRS7 data set is provided in the editorsrsquointroduction to this special issue of CoDesign) Some of the points that he makes inthis lsquobackground-informationrsquo video are relevant to his perceptions of his role asarchitect and so will be briefly outlined here prior to a more in-depth discussion ofthe architectclient interaction that occurs in meeting A1

In the background information video the architect talks about the early stages ofthe crematorium project For instance he expresses some frustration with the initialbrief for the project noting that it was lsquovery simplersquo (537) and that lsquowe really wanta lot more informationrsquo (539) (Numbers in brackets indicate the minutes andseconds in which the talk occurred in the video) The architect also mentions that hewent on to develop a more successful brief with the clients although he also statesthat within the collaborative process he made several decisions himself (eg lsquoI wasdetermined that this should be a concrete buildingrsquo (2139)) As the architect talksabout the early stages of the crematoriumrsquos design it is apparent that he waspersonally highly invested in the project For instance he states that lsquoof course itrsquosevery architectrsquos dreamrsquo (253) to work on such a building Also he notes that forhim the project lsquowas a dream come truersquo (259) and lsquoamazingrsquo (303) Further hesays from lsquovery early onrsquo (916) he had a particular idea for lsquowhat sort of form thebuilding should takersquo (817) that of Louis Khanrsquos Kimbell Art Museum in Texas(which the architect had visited in 1993) In the background information video thearchitect also talks about how he showed images of the Kimbell Art Museum to hisclients at an early meeting and he lsquocouldnrsquot believe it they were sold on the conceptvirtually straight awayrsquo (941)

The architectrsquos vision of a link between the Kimbell Art Museum and thecrematorium is accepted by his clients and so he is able to follow his inspirationwhich as the lsquostarting point for the architect [as] a way in to the problemrsquo (Darke1984 p 181) could be considered a lsquoprimary generatorrsquo for the project A primarygenerator is lsquoan article of faith on the part of the architect a designer-imposedconstraintrsquo (1984 p 181) that is lsquostrongly valued and self-imposedrsquo (1984 p 186)That the architect has created a personal link between the crematorium and theKimbell is evident from how he associates the project with his memories of visitingthe Kimbell (lsquothe whole feeling of it [the Kimbell] had never left me since visitingrsquo(1140)) The architect thus indicates that it is appropriate for him to associate hisprofessional work with memory emotion and embodied experience (Gero 1999Downing 2000 Solovyova 2003) Thus the architectrsquos talk in the background videoestablishes his decision-making capabilities and personal engagement with thebuilding as well as his recognition of the significance of the clients since as he notesif they had not been lsquosold on the conceptrsquo he may have had to design differentlyHaving outlined the architectrsquos perspective on some issues pertaining to the roles oflsquoarchitectrsquo and lsquoclientrsquo as expressed in the background video to the crematoriumrsquosdesign let us now turn to some talk from meeting A1 to consider how the architectand his client (and less so the other client present at the meeting) use talk to managetheir relationship(s) and perform architecture

3 Meeting structure

As outlined above this paper focuses on membership categories and how theyconstrain and afford certain forms of behaviour including certain forms of talk Forexample the data indicate that the architect perceives his role as one in which it is

CoDesign 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

acceptable behaviour for him to define the nature of the meeting (lsquoIrsquoll look forwardto hearing the feedback because thatrsquos the purpose of the meetingrsquo (A1 21ndash22))Indeed as we see in Extract 1 the architect frames the meeting as a way to gatherfeedback from several project stakeholders including funeral directors and otherbuilding users However although the client indicates that she has consulted otherswidely (lsquoeveryone thatrsquos come in has been dragged inrsquo (A1 83)) she does not actuallytell the architect what others have said (this issue is considered later in this paper)

4 Questions and answers in the performance of architecture

Although the architect seizes the initiative in defining the purpose of the meeting as afeedback session feedback from others is not forthcoming and the architect insteadseeks information by asking questions of the clients at hand The architect drawsattention to the appropriateness of his role as inquisitor by saying lsquothe first query Ihaversquo (A1 91) thereby implying that he will have several others From this point ona pattern of interaction develops in which questions and answers are significant tothe conduct of the meeting (particularly its first half) In MCA (as in ConversationAnalysis more broadly) questions and answers are understood as a type oflsquoadjacency pairrsquo that is a form of talk wherein one part (a question) is followed by asecond part (an answer) (Sacks 1992 Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998) While apparentlystraightforward in terms of their structure the asking and answering of questions issignificant in interaction particularly in institution-based talk because the speakerwho does the asking constrains the person asked to answer thereby creating apotential difference in power Indeed much of the way that talk can be identified asoccurring within an institutional setting is through considering how questions andanswers are managed For instance interaction between doctors and patients orteachers and students is identifiable as occurring within lsquomedicinersquo or lsquoeducationrsquo inpart because certain parties can and do ask questions of the other in particular ways(and in ways that differ from the usually more equally distributed asking andanswering of questions that characterises ordinary conversation between peers(Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998 149ndash154 Heritage 2005 pp 103ndash148)) In meeting A1the manner in which the architect asks questions and the topics that he asks aboutindicate that he seeks particular types of answers that he can use in designing thebuilding accordingly meeting A1 proceeds within the institution of lsquoarchitecturersquo ormore broadly lsquodesign practicersquo However as we will see the sort of information thatthe architect seeks is not always directly forthcoming from his client

41 Questions and answers clarity and ambiguity

In Extract 2 the architect seeks information concerning room size data that can betranslated into a drawing and then ultimately into the buildingrsquos final form Despite

Extract 1 Defining the meeting

77 Arch we thought it would be78 a very good idea to have another meeting to update everybody as to79 where wersquove got to and to receive your feedback because the last time80 you and I met - you said you were interested in talking to funeral81 directors and so on and so forth obtain feedback from people whorsquod be82 using the building83 Client which is everyone thatrsquos come in has been dragged in to show even84 my mumrsquos had a look [laughs]

54 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the clarity of his first question and despite it being rephrased as a recommendation(A1 125) the clientrsquos replies do not clearly answer the architectrsquos questions about theappropriate dimensions for the waiting room

In this extract the architect makes a clear request for information about room size(A1 117ndash118) but the clientrsquos answer leaves open for interpretation exactly how bigthe new waiting room should be Later when the architect suggests possibledimensions for the room (A1 126ndash128) the clientrsquos reply is also ambiguous the currentroom may or may not be big enough (A1 129ndash141) Eventually the client says that shewould like the waiting room lsquoa little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because it is awasted space most of the dayrsquo (A1 158ndash159) The architect responds to the clientrsquosambivalent comments by choosing dimensions (lsquoa couple of metresrsquo (A1 160)) andwriting on the drawing minuting their talk as a design decision made (see the secondmeeting A2 lsquoone of the items on the minutes last time was to increase the size of thewaiting roomrsquo (A2 49ndash50)) However despite the architectrsquos decision to extend thespace the client has not actually made a definitive response about her preferred roomsize Instead she answers his last question about waiting-room size (A1 161ndash162) bychanging the topic to suggest seating outside (A1 163ndash164)

In the meeting a turn-taking format arises in which the architect tends to askquestions about the buildingrsquos formal qualities such as room dimensions spatialarrangements andor amenities with the clientrsquos responses delivering somewhatambiguous accounts in reply This especially happens in the first half of the firstmeeting For example the talk in Extract 3 follows a similar pattern to that outlinedin Extract 2 wherein direct questions are answered by information-rich accounts

Extract 2 Questions and answers

117 Arch so my first question to you is is the waiting the room big enough and118 would you like us to increase it119 Client I would say although the time spent sitting and waiting might not be120 very long and eight seats seems enough at some stages even our waiting121 room is too big so its slightly Irsquom also thinking of the fact that if wersquove122 got a flow of people walking through that then restricts us we canrsquot put123 seats through that because in a sense we need to keep an access open124 and so the seating will be against the wall125 Arch what Irsquod recommend is that we look at doing something like that126 extending it which will give you seating areas here seating areas here127 seating areas here as well as here and here which effectively will double128 the seating capacity from what I was just saying129 Client yes I mean people waiting for cabs or for people waiting to be picked130 up as well for services you know it might not sort of eight might be more131 than enough for funerals for the majority of the time but I would think132 itrsquos nice to give them a bit more space as well because we might get133 people waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral erm and people at the ten134 orsquoclock perhaps arrive and so they keep in their little groups they donrsquot135 want to mix with other people so the feeling of keeping them segregated136 just because they donrsquot know the other people might also be there and we137 do have problems with families like that during funerals

(two lines excised for brevity)140 Client you know yoursquod think it would bring141 them together but it actually makes it worse142 Arch really gosh

(fifteen lines excised for brevity)158 Client so Irsquod like it a little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because there is it is159 a wasted space most of the day really160 Arch yeah well I would have thought another couple of metres on there [writes161 on drawing] would do the trick so shall we agree a two metre extension162 yes or thereabouts hmm163 Client I mean the other suggestion that perhaps I could make at this stage164 would be perhaps for a small amount of outside seating

CoDesign 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

acceptable behaviour for him to define the nature of the meeting (lsquoIrsquoll look forwardto hearing the feedback because thatrsquos the purpose of the meetingrsquo (A1 21ndash22))Indeed as we see in Extract 1 the architect frames the meeting as a way to gatherfeedback from several project stakeholders including funeral directors and otherbuilding users However although the client indicates that she has consulted otherswidely (lsquoeveryone thatrsquos come in has been dragged inrsquo (A1 83)) she does not actuallytell the architect what others have said (this issue is considered later in this paper)

4 Questions and answers in the performance of architecture

Although the architect seizes the initiative in defining the purpose of the meeting as afeedback session feedback from others is not forthcoming and the architect insteadseeks information by asking questions of the clients at hand The architect drawsattention to the appropriateness of his role as inquisitor by saying lsquothe first query Ihaversquo (A1 91) thereby implying that he will have several others From this point ona pattern of interaction develops in which questions and answers are significant tothe conduct of the meeting (particularly its first half) In MCA (as in ConversationAnalysis more broadly) questions and answers are understood as a type oflsquoadjacency pairrsquo that is a form of talk wherein one part (a question) is followed by asecond part (an answer) (Sacks 1992 Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998) While apparentlystraightforward in terms of their structure the asking and answering of questions issignificant in interaction particularly in institution-based talk because the speakerwho does the asking constrains the person asked to answer thereby creating apotential difference in power Indeed much of the way that talk can be identified asoccurring within an institutional setting is through considering how questions andanswers are managed For instance interaction between doctors and patients orteachers and students is identifiable as occurring within lsquomedicinersquo or lsquoeducationrsquo inpart because certain parties can and do ask questions of the other in particular ways(and in ways that differ from the usually more equally distributed asking andanswering of questions that characterises ordinary conversation between peers(Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998 149ndash154 Heritage 2005 pp 103ndash148)) In meeting A1the manner in which the architect asks questions and the topics that he asks aboutindicate that he seeks particular types of answers that he can use in designing thebuilding accordingly meeting A1 proceeds within the institution of lsquoarchitecturersquo ormore broadly lsquodesign practicersquo However as we will see the sort of information thatthe architect seeks is not always directly forthcoming from his client

41 Questions and answers clarity and ambiguity

In Extract 2 the architect seeks information concerning room size data that can betranslated into a drawing and then ultimately into the buildingrsquos final form Despite

Extract 1 Defining the meeting

77 Arch we thought it would be78 a very good idea to have another meeting to update everybody as to79 where wersquove got to and to receive your feedback because the last time80 you and I met - you said you were interested in talking to funeral81 directors and so on and so forth obtain feedback from people whorsquod be82 using the building83 Client which is everyone thatrsquos come in has been dragged in to show even84 my mumrsquos had a look [laughs]

54 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the clarity of his first question and despite it being rephrased as a recommendation(A1 125) the clientrsquos replies do not clearly answer the architectrsquos questions about theappropriate dimensions for the waiting room

In this extract the architect makes a clear request for information about room size(A1 117ndash118) but the clientrsquos answer leaves open for interpretation exactly how bigthe new waiting room should be Later when the architect suggests possibledimensions for the room (A1 126ndash128) the clientrsquos reply is also ambiguous the currentroom may or may not be big enough (A1 129ndash141) Eventually the client says that shewould like the waiting room lsquoa little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because it is awasted space most of the dayrsquo (A1 158ndash159) The architect responds to the clientrsquosambivalent comments by choosing dimensions (lsquoa couple of metresrsquo (A1 160)) andwriting on the drawing minuting their talk as a design decision made (see the secondmeeting A2 lsquoone of the items on the minutes last time was to increase the size of thewaiting roomrsquo (A2 49ndash50)) However despite the architectrsquos decision to extend thespace the client has not actually made a definitive response about her preferred roomsize Instead she answers his last question about waiting-room size (A1 161ndash162) bychanging the topic to suggest seating outside (A1 163ndash164)

In the meeting a turn-taking format arises in which the architect tends to askquestions about the buildingrsquos formal qualities such as room dimensions spatialarrangements andor amenities with the clientrsquos responses delivering somewhatambiguous accounts in reply This especially happens in the first half of the firstmeeting For example the talk in Extract 3 follows a similar pattern to that outlinedin Extract 2 wherein direct questions are answered by information-rich accounts

Extract 2 Questions and answers

117 Arch so my first question to you is is the waiting the room big enough and118 would you like us to increase it119 Client I would say although the time spent sitting and waiting might not be120 very long and eight seats seems enough at some stages even our waiting121 room is too big so its slightly Irsquom also thinking of the fact that if wersquove122 got a flow of people walking through that then restricts us we canrsquot put123 seats through that because in a sense we need to keep an access open124 and so the seating will be against the wall125 Arch what Irsquod recommend is that we look at doing something like that126 extending it which will give you seating areas here seating areas here127 seating areas here as well as here and here which effectively will double128 the seating capacity from what I was just saying129 Client yes I mean people waiting for cabs or for people waiting to be picked130 up as well for services you know it might not sort of eight might be more131 than enough for funerals for the majority of the time but I would think132 itrsquos nice to give them a bit more space as well because we might get133 people waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral erm and people at the ten134 orsquoclock perhaps arrive and so they keep in their little groups they donrsquot135 want to mix with other people so the feeling of keeping them segregated136 just because they donrsquot know the other people might also be there and we137 do have problems with families like that during funerals

(two lines excised for brevity)140 Client you know yoursquod think it would bring141 them together but it actually makes it worse142 Arch really gosh

(fifteen lines excised for brevity)158 Client so Irsquod like it a little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because there is it is159 a wasted space most of the day really160 Arch yeah well I would have thought another couple of metres on there [writes161 on drawing] would do the trick so shall we agree a two metre extension162 yes or thereabouts hmm163 Client I mean the other suggestion that perhaps I could make at this stage164 would be perhaps for a small amount of outside seating

CoDesign 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the clarity of his first question and despite it being rephrased as a recommendation(A1 125) the clientrsquos replies do not clearly answer the architectrsquos questions about theappropriate dimensions for the waiting room

In this extract the architect makes a clear request for information about room size(A1 117ndash118) but the clientrsquos answer leaves open for interpretation exactly how bigthe new waiting room should be Later when the architect suggests possibledimensions for the room (A1 126ndash128) the clientrsquos reply is also ambiguous the currentroom may or may not be big enough (A1 129ndash141) Eventually the client says that shewould like the waiting room lsquoa little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because it is awasted space most of the dayrsquo (A1 158ndash159) The architect responds to the clientrsquosambivalent comments by choosing dimensions (lsquoa couple of metresrsquo (A1 160)) andwriting on the drawing minuting their talk as a design decision made (see the secondmeeting A2 lsquoone of the items on the minutes last time was to increase the size of thewaiting roomrsquo (A2 49ndash50)) However despite the architectrsquos decision to extend thespace the client has not actually made a definitive response about her preferred roomsize Instead she answers his last question about waiting-room size (A1 161ndash162) bychanging the topic to suggest seating outside (A1 163ndash164)

In the meeting a turn-taking format arises in which the architect tends to askquestions about the buildingrsquos formal qualities such as room dimensions spatialarrangements andor amenities with the clientrsquos responses delivering somewhatambiguous accounts in reply This especially happens in the first half of the firstmeeting For example the talk in Extract 3 follows a similar pattern to that outlinedin Extract 2 wherein direct questions are answered by information-rich accounts

Extract 2 Questions and answers

117 Arch so my first question to you is is the waiting the room big enough and118 would you like us to increase it119 Client I would say although the time spent sitting and waiting might not be120 very long and eight seats seems enough at some stages even our waiting121 room is too big so its slightly Irsquom also thinking of the fact that if wersquove122 got a flow of people walking through that then restricts us we canrsquot put123 seats through that because in a sense we need to keep an access open124 and so the seating will be against the wall125 Arch what Irsquod recommend is that we look at doing something like that126 extending it which will give you seating areas here seating areas here127 seating areas here as well as here and here which effectively will double128 the seating capacity from what I was just saying129 Client yes I mean people waiting for cabs or for people waiting to be picked130 up as well for services you know it might not sort of eight might be more131 than enough for funerals for the majority of the time but I would think132 itrsquos nice to give them a bit more space as well because we might get133 people waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral erm and people at the ten134 orsquoclock perhaps arrive and so they keep in their little groups they donrsquot135 want to mix with other people so the feeling of keeping them segregated136 just because they donrsquot know the other people might also be there and we137 do have problems with families like that during funerals

(two lines excised for brevity)140 Client you know yoursquod think it would bring141 them together but it actually makes it worse142 Arch really gosh

(fifteen lines excised for brevity)158 Client so Irsquod like it a little bit bigger I think thorn not hugely because there is it is159 a wasted space most of the day really160 Arch yeah well I would have thought another couple of metres on there [writes161 on drawing] would do the trick so shall we agree a two metre extension162 yes or thereabouts hmm163 Client I mean the other suggestion that perhaps I could make at this stage164 would be perhaps for a small amount of outside seating

CoDesign 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(also see McDonnell this issue who discusses the clientrsquos rich descriptions ofbuilding use)

Here the architect first asks the client (in this extract noted as Client 1) a clearquestion about the size required for the sanctuary entrance (A1 342) lsquowould this bewide enough for two coffinsrsquo but Client 1 is not sure This is soon followed by aquestion from the second client who was present at the meeting He asks about thesize of the trolley on which a coffin is carried (A1 350) implying that if this can beestablished then from it may be estimated the space needed for two trolleys Despitethe specificities of the questions raised by the architect and the second client thereplies of the first client express doubt over her ability to answer (A1 347 and 351 lsquoIdonrsquot knowrsquo) Eventually rather than answering their questions about the requiredsize of the sanctuary or the actual size of the trolley she describes some of theproblems associated with a multi-coffin funeral (A1 351ndash363) Whilst the event of athree-coffin funeral might be rare her reference to it implies that it should at least beconsidered (A1 357ndash359) Eventually the architect again seeks clarification of thespecific dimensions of the entrance space (lsquomy question for you is how wide would itneed to bersquo (A1 368)) with the first clientrsquos answer (lsquowersquoll have a measure up on thatrsquo(A1 370)) indicating that she does not know how wide the area would need to beand that she alone is unwilling to estimate its size Her reply puts off into the futurea decision about the dimensions of the sanctuary a decision that she proposes shouldbe made by more than one person (lsquowersquo)

42 The management of clarity and ambiguity

From these two representative extracts we can see that the architect performs hisrole as architect through actions such as defining the terms of the meeting andasking questions that are designed to elicit a certain type of information Incontrast Client 1 performs her role as client through replying in ways that tend

Extract 3 Further questions and answers

342 Arch so my next two questions are are the sanctuary and the catafalque bigenough(two lines excised for brevity)

345 Arch there might be the possibility of a double funeral in which case wouldthis be

346 wide enough for two coffins thornthorn347 Client 1 it wouldnrsquot probably I donrsquot know348 Arch itrsquos just over three metres diameter itrsquos about three point one metres349 diameter350 Client 2 how wide is the existing er trolley351 Client 1 I donrsquot know I think I would say it might just I mean at the moment they352 can just they can just go in side by side but itrsquos difficult to squeeze in to353 put the coffins on at the moment even because yoursquove also yoursquove got the354 two catafalques in side by side and you need to have four routes for355 people to go either you need the one in the middle for both people to go356 and the ones at the end for them to drop the coffins off erm but even two357 catafalques isnrsquot always enough wersquove had three or wersquove had car358 accidents you know wersquove had three coffins and wersquove not been able to359 accommodate all the you know I mean if we can do two thatrsquos the360 majority of them put them side beside or in the sense perhaps have the361 catafalque so it can expand to accommodate two I donrsquot know one362 catafalque that spreads out like a sort of a table or something I donrsquot363 know

(four lines excised for brevity)368 Arch OK so my question for you is how wide would it need to be for two369 coffins or if wersquore going for two it would need to be370 Client 1 wersquoll have a measure up on that

56 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

not to directly answer the architectrsquos questions that is she does not reply using thekind of terms in which the questions are presented (terms associated with spatialdimensions or room measurement) Not all clients would respond as she does buther replies are significant because they are relevant within the context of the designprocess for this particular building In effect the interaction between this architectand this client creates a framework for design in which questions about the specificformal qualities needed in the future building are answered with detailed accountsof behaviour and descriptions of events as they occur in the present building Forinstance Extract 2 deals with the clientrsquos answer to the architectrsquos first question (lsquoisthe waiting room big enoughrsquo (A1 117)) Here her response does not mentionroom size but she does provide a rich description of the behaviour of people whowait She mentions the usual numbers of people and notes that their waiting is anordered activity whose management needs to be handled sensitively (lsquowe might getpeople waiting for the eleven orsquoclock funeral and people at the ten orsquoclock perhapsarriversquo (A1 132ndash134)) Also the client notes the potentially fraught emotionalclimate of those who wait (lsquothey donrsquot want to mix with other peoplersquo (A1 134ndash135) lsquowe do have problems with familiesrsquo (A1 136ndash137) lsquoyou know yoursquod bethinking it would bring them together but it actually makes it worsersquo (A1 140ndash141)) As McDonnell (this issue) also notes in her discussion of this portion of themeeting the clientrsquos account of othersrsquo activities shows the complexity of what goeson in the building and enables the client to perform effectively as a lsquobuildingexpertrsquo However by evading a direct answer in which she stipulates roomdimensions the client suggests that she does not consider herself to be best suitedto decide precisely what the space should be like

Extract 3 also features the client offering answers that may seem somewhatevasive this time in response to the architectrsquos question about the size of thesanctuary entrance and to the second clientrsquos question about trolley size Yet againthe client actually does provide information that is relevant to the discussion of theappropriate size for the sanctuary although the significance of her answer does notseem to have been recognised in this sequence of interaction That is the architectrsquosquestion lsquowould this be wide enough for two coffinsrsquo (A1 345ndash346) is actually metby the client with a precise answer as she first says lsquoit wouldnlsquotrsquo (A1 347) Howevershe immediately follows this statement with lsquoprobablyrsquo and lsquoI donrsquot knowrsquo (A1 347)That is she couches the clarity of her initial answer in terms that suggest doubtEventually she provides a detailed description of a multi-coffin funeral that actuallysupports her initial answer of lsquoit wouldnrsquotrsquo (ie the entrance wouldnrsquot be wideenough for two coffins) This description indicates how cramped the space is now(lsquoitrsquos difficult to squeeze inrsquo (A1 352)) and upgrades this negative assessment to raisethe extreme example of a three-coffin funeral (A1 357ndash359) Through referring tosuch a rhetorically hyperbolic case the clientrsquos answer can be understood as a form oflsquodisagreement managementrsquo (Antaki and Leudar 1992 p 190) in which an unusualclaim (such as a three-coffin funeral) may act as an expression of doubt Thus theclient both implies that she disagrees with the dimensions suggested by the architectwhile also evading a personal recommendation of what those dimensions should be

5 Particularisation expertise and ownership

The clientrsquos answers to the architectrsquos questions offer descriptive stories that containexamples of particularisation or details that enable the client to perform the specific

CoDesign 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

knowledge and proficiency she has as an lsquoexpertrsquo on the building (Billig 1996Wiggins and Potter 2003 Oak 2006) The rhetorical performance of such knowledgeenables her to contribute to meeting A1 and thus be deemed relevant as lsquoa clientrsquoHowever the complex and nuanced information that she includes in her storiesabout the buildingrsquos use does not always seem to be understood as relevant by thearchitect who for instance repeats his questions to her (A1 342 345ndash346 368ndash369)perhaps seeking an answer more in accordance with the information he seeks (egroom dimensions) This level of apparent miscommunication does not appear totrouble the client indeed as we have seen her answers seem designed to achieve acertain level of indirectness In effect by offering descriptions rather than straightanswers the client casts the architect into the roles of lsquoclient-interpreterrsquo andlsquodecision-makerrsquo Her talk of the behavioural nuances of room use rather than ofroom size puts the architect into a position from which he is constrained to makedecisions about interior spaces without clear direction from her That the clientbelieves the architect is responsible for making such decisions is further suggested bysome passages of talk (Extracts 4ndash7) in which changes to the buildingrsquos plans aresuggested and in which the client is sensitive to how the architect may perceive suchchanges for instance

In Extracts 4 and 5 the client is concerned with not lsquocompromising your [thearchitectrsquos] designrsquo (A1 802 1152) (a topic also dealt with by Luck in this specialissue) In Extract 6 the client worries that if the architect returned to the buildingin the future he would find that subsequent changes they made on their own mighthave lsquomucked everything uprsquo (A1 1175) In Extract 7 the client upgrades herconcern with not compromising the architectrsquos design by joking that suchcompromises may be lsquotoo heartbreakingrsquo for him (A1 816) While all participantslaugh at such an affect-related term her words suggest that she recognises aspectsof the architectrsquos emotional investment in the building (as was established earlierthrough his use of terms such as lsquoexcitedrsquo and lsquodream come truersquo (A1 73ndash74))Extracts 4ndash7 thus suggest that the client accedes ownership of many qualities of the

Extract 4 Building ownership

802 Client I donrsquot want to compromise your design

Extract 5 Building ownership

1152 Client Compromising your design all the time [laughs]

Extract 6 Building ownership

1174 Client what I donrsquot want you to do is sort of come back in five years after1175 wersquove done all this and then find that wersquove mucked everything up

Extract 7 Building ownership

813 Arch we might be able to get it to work it does go slightly against the814 grain for me to do that but it does satisfy what you wanted and it means815 that we could link this up to it actually so- thornthornthornthornthornthorn816 Client OK is that too heartbreaking for you [all laugh]817 Arch well itrsquos not as pure a summation as I was looking for but I mean818 maybe therersquos another way of doing it maybe if I keep my thinking cap819 on because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces pure the820 purer the space the more spiritual I think

58 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

building to the architect a position that the architect seems to accept since when acompromise to his proposal is suggested he does not readily agree with it (asindicated by comments such as those in Extract 7 lsquoit does go slightly against thegrain for mersquo (A1 813ndash814) and lsquoitrsquos not as pure a summation as I was lookingfor because you can see Irsquom trying to keep the spaces purersquo (A1 817ndash820))

6 The performance of assessment

Finally in Extract 8 we see how the client indicates an awareness of the architectrsquospersonal engagement with the building in relation to the negative judgements ofothers Here the client both delivers bad news while also apparently seeking toprotect the architect from it

In this extract it is notable that the client is not the first to report a specificderisive term that others have applied to the crematorium Instead the clientforecasts (Maynard 1996) that bad news is imminent through terms such as lsquosome ofthem have mentioned the feeling that they getrsquo (A1 1264ndash1265) Structurally inconversation such a forecast or lsquopreannouncementrsquo acts as a lsquodevice by which a newsgiver can discover whether a recipient already knows some news-to-be-toldrsquo(Maynard 1996 p 115 2003 pp 88ndash119) Indeed the architectrsquos reply lsquoaircrafthangarrsquo (A1 1267) indicates that he does know the specifics of some of the negativejudgements In keeping with the characteristic structure of delivering bad news theclient then lsquoelaboratesrsquo (Maynard 2003 p 94) on the negative term by addinganother even more negative term (lsquochicken hutrsquo (A1 1268)) This sequence indicatesthe manner in which the participants are able to negotiate a series of socialrelationships and follow conventions for politeness in language That is lsquopolitersquoconversation restricts a participant from making a report that threatens anotherparticipantrsquos lsquofacersquo (the positive public self image that they project for others(Goffman 1999 p 306 see also Brown and Levinson 1987 Mills 2003)) In thisextract the clientrsquos use of a preannouncement maintains her lsquofacersquo and that of thearchitect (by not bluntly reporting the negative assessments of others she candistance herself and the architect from the judgements of the funeral directors and so

Extract 8 Building assessment

1263 Client because I think what [funeral directors] canrsquot quite see from the drawings1264 obviously the first drawings that wersquove got there is the fact that some of1265 them have mentioned the feeling that they get from those sort of what they1266 think is some of the comments that have been made about1267 Arch the aircraft hangar1268 Client the aircraft hangar or a chicken hut or-1269 Arch [makes a sound with his lips]1270 Client Irsquom just pre-warning you what they might use as a comment so I donrsquot1271 want to make you feel you know thatrsquos what they might mention but they1272 canrsquot as Irsquove said to them1273 Arch chicken hut1274 Client I said what yoursquore not looking at is the sense of what the roof will be1275 covered in in a sense how it will look as we drive as you said to me I1276 said to them what yoursquove got to remember is yoursquore looking at it from1277 this way you wonrsquot be looking at it when you drive in that way 1278 which is why Irsquove done the photographs sorry to point1279 the photographs of the actual building itself so they could see the actual1280 sort of you know the feel of how the roof shape is from this angle in a1281 way so Irsquove tried to explain that to them and pre-warn them so they donrsquot1282 pick on yer [laughs]

CoDesign 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

maintain a cordial personal relationship with the architect) Further the architectrsquosutterance of lsquoaircraft hangarrsquo indicates that he is aware of the clientrsquos impendingnews and so by reporting this negative assessment himself he saves the clientrsquos face(by removing from her the responsibility to report the negative comments of thefuneral directors) Additionally he saves his own face by indicating that the badnews is not a surprise

The manner in which the participants manage the delivery of the negativeassessments of the funeral directors is interesting in part because the sequencing ofthese utterances demonstrates how the client meets her responsibilities to the funeraldirectors to communicate their perceptions to the architect while also meeting herown need to maintain an amiable relationship with the architect In effect the clientmanages to inform the architect of the negative opinions of others establish herselfas the architectrsquos protector (lsquoIrsquom just pre-warning yoursquo (A1 1270)) and presentherself as a client who has gained knowledge through her previous interactions withthe architect Indeed not only has she gained knowledge of architecture she reportsthat she has used it in an attempt to educate the architectrsquos critics (lsquoas you said to meI said to themrsquo (A1 1275ndash1276) and lsquowhich is why Irsquove done the photographs sothey could see the feel of how the roof shape is Irsquove tried to explain that tothemrsquo (A1 1279ndash1281))

The issue of how the participants jointly manage the reporting of the funeraldirectorsrsquo negative assessments returns us to the early part of this paper whereinExtract 1 shows the architect proposing that the meeting should be a feedbacksession a proposal that was evaded by the client since she did not offer him directfeedback from others Given that we now know the negative qualities of some of thisfeedback the client was constrained not to report it especially not early in themeeting That is conversationrsquos structure sees certain types of response as lsquopreferredrsquo(a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper but see Silverman 2006 pp208ndash209) with a dispreferred response being delayed or hedged Thus we can seehow the characteristics of preferred responses and politeness conventions help tostructure meeting A1 so that it proceeded as an occasion for the architect to askquestions of the client (rather than as a session where the client would readily reportthe feedback of others) Accordingly as meeting A1 becomes an architectclientquestion-and-answer session the talk enables the client to perform as someonewho is knowledgeable about the activities that occur in the existing building but assomeone who is disinclined to state precisely how the new buildingrsquos spaces shouldbe arranged

7 Conversation categories and design

An interesting aspect of the way this meeting unfolds is that together seamlesslyand without prior arrangement the participants in meeting A1 perform their roleswithin the membership categories of client and architect in ways that help toperpetuate everyday perceptions of architectural practice That is although atseveral points the architect draws attention to the collaborative nature of design (eglsquowell itrsquos your building you knowrsquo (A1 1177)) nevertheless as we saw in Extracts 4ndash8 the talk of the participants accedes ownership of the buildingrsquos form to him asarchitect This is further supported through the architectrsquos claiming lsquoownershiprsquo ofthe structure of the meeting and through his inclination to determine the kind oftopics that should be asked about (eg the appropriate dimensions of rooms) Such

60 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interaction subtly supports a popular view that architects are likely more concernedwith building form than with its function and that they may be inclined to fulfil theirown vision rather than that of the clientsrsquo (Jenkins 2006 Mawer 2007 Morrison2007) Such talk also supports a professional perspective wherein architects arepresented as people who use lsquotheir unique creative skills to advise individualsrsquo and aspeople who lsquocan be extremely influential as well as being admired for theirimagination and creative skillsrsquo (RIBA website)

In the interactions discussed here the architect was placed in a decision-makingrole partly in response to the clientrsquos talk in which the client herself avoided makingdesign-related judgements about for instance the measurement of rooms Yetperhaps under the circumstances the client would prefer not to be responsible for theconfiguration of a building that she may have to justify to others for years to comeThat is the clientrsquos everyday life brings her into frequent contact with the funeraldirectors some of whom have stated that they believe the proposed building lookslike an aircraft hangar or a chicken hut In effect the clientrsquos disinclination toprecisely answer the architectrsquos questions about building form and space allocationmay allow her in the future to save face with colleagues who could question herabout such aspects of the finished building This is not to suggest that the clientrsquossomewhat evasive answers to the architect are the result of a lack of confidenceInstead in the context of an analysis of the interaction of meeting A1 her talksuggests the complexities of her role as client and indicates that she manages tocommunicate the needs of a range of building-stakeholders (from bereaved visitorsto critical funeral directors) while also skilfully maintaining a genial relationship withthe architect (and her colleague who was also present at meeting A1) Hereindirectness in talk can be seen as something of an interactional accomplishment anddemonstration of the diverse requirements that may be associated with her role asclient

8 Concluding remarks

This paperrsquos discussion of questions and answers attributions of ownership and themanagement of negative assessment in a meeting about architecture has shown howan architect and a client constrain and afford each otherrsquos design-related behaviourthrough their talk While the structures and topics of their interaction are orderedthe specificities of their performance ensures that this design process is a singular andnuanced context from which a singular and nuanced building will emerge Despitethe orderliness and specificity of this process some generalised comments may bemade First participants come to design-related contexts with pre-existing knowl-edge and beliefs about what design (architecture) is and how it happens It is possiblethat designers may have reflected upon what constitutes appropriate design-relatedknowledge and behaviour but it is likely that many clients have not While theimpact on the design process of participantsrsquo knowledge and beliefs can perhaps betraced it is difficult to anticipate given that one participant will elicit a context-specific performance from another Nevertheless it may be worthwhile for architectsand clients to occasionally discuss the nature of their dialogue particularly early inthe design process so that participants may become more aware of how they may betalking in ways that could perhaps limit aspects of the design process

Second and related to the first point is that roles that become associated withmembership categories may unconsciously constrain participant behaviour That is

CoDesign 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

even if each party comes to the design process with a willingness to collaborate itmay be difficult to achieve given that collaboration occurs partly through moment-by-moment interaction Thus as we have seen a clientrsquos talk may help an architectperform initiative and ownership while an architectrsquos talk may help a client performambiguity and relative acquiescence Third although the roles of architect and clientare performed in the present they are also carried into the future Therefore a clientmay manage their role in the design process by trading off a high degree ofparticipation in the present with the ability to save face with colleagues in the futureGiven this possibility perhaps as the design process unfolds architects and clientscould discuss how a clientrsquos relationships with other stakeholders may impact upontheir decisions concerning a future buildingrsquos form and function Finally in terms ofhow the topics discussed here may be useful in the context of design educationstudents could be made more aware of how the orderly performance of (polite)interaction may itself contribute to the practice of design and that clients maydemonstrate ambivalence within the design process for reasons that could rangefrom their lack of design-related knowledge to the nature of the ongoingrelationships they have with colleagues

To summarise then we have seen how an architect and a client perform theirroles in an accountable and competent manner in part through the structures andtopics of social interaction In effect their communication is constitutive of an object(the crematorium) a process (design) and of their mutual roles in that processThrough their talk the architect and client draw upon categories of action and sotogether they design a building but their talk also helps to create and perpetuate thecustoms attitudes beliefs and behaviours that form and inform the social practiceof design

References

Antaki C and Leudar I 1992 Explaining in conversation Towards an argument modelEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 22 181ndash194

Billig M 1996 Arguing and thinking A rhetorical approach to social psychology CambridgeCambridge University Press

Boden D and Zimmerman D eds 1991 Talk and social structure Studies inethnomethodology and conversation analysis Cambridge Polity Press

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness Some universals in language usage CambridgeCambridge University Press

Cross N and Clayburn Cross A 1995 Observations of teamwork and social processes indesign Design Studies 16 (2) 143ndash170

Cross N Christiaans H and Dorst K eds 1996 Analysing design activity London WileyDarke J 1984 The primary generator and the design process In N Cross ed Developments

in design methodology Chichester John Wiley amp Sons 175ndash188Downing F 2000 Remembrance and the design of place College Station TX AampM

UniversityDrew P and Heritage J eds 1997 Talk at work Interaction in institutional settings

Cambridge Cambridge University PressFleming D 1998 Design talk Constructing the object in studio conversations Design Issues

13 (2) 41ndash62Gero J 1999 Constructive memory in design thinking In G Goldshmidt and W Porter

eds Design thinking research symposium Design representation Cambridge MA MITPress 29ndash35

Goffman E 1999 [1967] On facework An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction InA Jaworski and N Coupland eds The discourse reader London Routledge 306ndash321

Glock F this issue Aspects of language use in design conversation CoDesign

62 A Oak

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology Cambridge Polity PressHeritage J 2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk In K Fitch and R Sanders

eds Handbook of language and social interaction London Routledge 103ndash147Housley W 2006 Membership Categorisation Analysis Sequences and meeting talk

Working Paper 84 School of Social Sciences Cardiff UniversityHousley W and Fizgerald R 2002 The reconsidered model of membership categorization

analysis Qualitative Research 2 59ndash83Hutchby I and Wooffitt R 1998 Conversation analysis Principles practices and

applications Cambridge Polity PressJenkins S 2006 The Gherkin is magnificent but it should have been built elsewhere [online]

Available from httptinyurlcom6oporw [Accessed 22 July 2008]Lloyd P and Busby J 2001 Softening up the facts Engineers in design meetings Design

Issues 17 (3) 67ndash82Luck R 2007 Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations Design Studies 28

217ndash242Luck R this issue lsquoDoes this compromise your designrsquo Interactionally producing a design

concept in talk CoDesignMathews B this issue Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order CoDesignMaynard D 1996 On lsquorealizationrsquo in everyday life The forecasting of bad news as a social

relation American Sociological Review 61 (1) 109ndash131Maynard D 2003 Bad news good news Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical

settings Chicago University of Chicago PressMawer N 2007 Crystal vision blurry ROMrsquos addition does little to brighten cityrsquos streets

[online] The Starcom Available from httptinyurlcom5s3x5y [Accessed 22 July 2008]McDonnell J this issue Collaborative negotiation in design A study of design conversations

between architect and building users CoDesignMills S 2003 Gender and politeness Cambridge Cambridge University PressMorrison R 2007 For ever thinking outside the boxy A new design museum show pays tribute

to Zaha Hadidrsquos remarkable if often impractical vision [online] Times Online Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6bkn2c [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Oak A 2000 lsquoItrsquos a nice idea but itrsquos not actually realrsquo Assessing the objects and activities ofdesign The International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1) 86ndash95

Oak A 2001 Identities in practice Configuring design activity and social identity through talkUnpublished thesis (PhD) Kingrsquos College University of Cambridge

Oak A 2006 Particularizing the past Persuasion and value in oral history interviews anddesign critiques Journal of Design History 19 (4) 345ndash356

Psathas G 1999 Studying the organization in action Membership categorization andinteraction analysis Human Studies 22 139ndash162

RIBA Becoming an Architect [online] RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects Availablefrom httptinyurlcom6eplau [Accessed 22 July 2008]

Sacks H 1992 Lectures on conversation (Vols I and II) London Blackwell PublishingScrivener S Ball L and Woodcock A eds 2000 Collaborative design London Springer

VerlagShotter J 1981 Telling and reporting Prospective and retrospective uses of self-

ascriptions In C Antaki ed The psychology of ordinary explanations of socialbehaviour London Academic Press

Silverman D 2006 Interpreting qualitative data 3rd ed London Sage PublicationsSolovyova I 2003 Conjecture and emotion An investigation of the relationship between design

thinking and emotional content [online] Available from httptinyurlcom5z8xte[Accessed 22 July 2008]

Stumpf S and McDonnell J 2002 Talking about team framing Using argumentation toanalyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes Design Studies 23 5ndash23

Wiggins S and Potter J 2003 Attitudes and evaluative practices Category vs item andsubjective vs objective constructions in everyday food assessments British Journal ofSocial Psychology 42 513ndash531

Wittgenstein L 2001 [1953] Philosophical investigations London Blackwell Publishing

CoDesign 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11

53 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013