Abraham Wandersman Wandersman Center

Jeffrey Wandersman Palette Architecture

The proverbial gap between research and practice exists in architecture –as it does in health, education, social services and every other arena we are acquainted with. This brief paper describes the gap and a framework for possibly bridging the gap. As a member of EDRA since EDRA 6 and a co-chair of EDRA 11, Abe Wandersman has been interested in how our buildings and environments could be improved using social science knowledge. Since 2006, Jeff Wandersman has been a practicing architect; in 2010 he became a founding partner of Palette Architecture—a 10-person architecture firm based in NYC.

What does the gap look like

Palette Architecture is engaged in a wide variety of housing projects and they have social environmental implications. Its New York city projects range from luxury condos (figure 1) to private residential townhouses, (figure 2),affordable housing developments (figure 3), Co-living projects (figure 4), to developments of affordable housing on city-owned undersized lots (figure 5).

Figure 1: 10-unit luxury Condominium project with ground-floor retail in Tribeca, Manhattan

Figure 2: Renovation and addition to single-family townhouse in Brooklyn

Figure 3: 25 unit affordable housing project in The Bronx

Figure 4: Renovation of a manufacturing building in Queens to become Co-living facility

Figure 5: Winning proposal for a design competition sponsored by NYC Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD) and AIA New Yorkfor developing small lots that are owned by the city with a co-living design

As an emerging, small architectural practice in New York City, we work simultaneously on a large number of projects with diverse typology and client-determined project requirements. Delivering projects through the maze of New York City regulatory agencies that are on schedule and on budget often leaves limited time for research, design iteration, or post-construction assessments. Our office constantly works to streamline our process, but ultimately, we deliver a service and not a product. Designs are not repeated and the standards for what makes a successful building might shift from one project to the next. Our process begins by trying to understand and prioritize the different parameters that will shape the building. As the design process progresses and solidifies, we continue to ask these questions to confirm that the decisions being made are directed and holistic. With limited time and resources to devote to research, we frequently revert to our own past work and to studies of precedent to help solve the myriad of questions that arise through the design process. If there were ways to incorporate relevant research into this process this could help to push the discourse forward.

Obvious questions arise including:

What social science knowledge is available for each of these projects?

Which criteria are most important for a particular project?

Where can the knowledge be found?

Is it written in academic language or has it been “translated” for practical application?

A Framework for Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice

Abe Wandersman has been involved in the field of implementation science for many years. Implementation science has been concerned with the barriers and facilitators involved in moving from research to use in practice—particularly in widespread use of research by practitioners. AW and colleagues developed a framework called the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation (ISF, figure6). This framework was initially developed to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention get evidence-based interventions to be more widely used in practice. We propose that this framework can be useful for helping to bridge the gap between research and practice in architecture and related fields. There are three systems in the ISF:

1. Synthesis and Translation: First can the research knowledge that is contained in various articles and books be synthesized (e.g., via systematic literature reviews and/or meta analyses) and then translated. For example, can knowledge in a variety of books and journals on best practices for designing collective housing or public amenity spaces in mixed-use residential projects be put in one place AND then “translated” into practical language in a place that is accessible to architects.

2. Support System

   AW has found that in many domains (e.g., health, education) there needs to be a support system in place that helps practitioners use new knowledge and techniques. Support system mechanisms include tools (e.g., books, websites), training (e.g., CEU workshops), technical assistance or coaching “on the job”, and quality assurance/quality improvement.

3. Delivery System

   In this case, the delivery system is the architectural firm. Abe Wandersman and colleagues (Scaccia et al, 2015) look at the readiness of a delivery system (e.g., architectural firm) to do something that is new to the firm. For example, if an architectural firm is presented with the idea of doing a new program or process, it must be ready in order to implement it well. The readiness framework uses the R=MC² framework to assess readiness to do something new. M stands for Motivation—how motivated is the firm to do this new thing. Motivation is influenced by factors such as the complexity of the new thing, its relative advantage to what they already do, the ability to pilot the new thing vs stop everything so you can learn to do this new thing.

   Innovation-specific capacity are the capacities and skills needed to actually do the new thing; this includes knowledge and skills, supportive climate of the firm, a champion in the firm who really pays attention to it and pushes it to happen.

   General capacity--how the firm operates day to day. Is it a healthy organization in terms of culture, leadership, staff capacities? If a firm is struggling to keep its head above water, it is not likely to be able to incorporate something new into its operations.

   

Conclusion

Architects are hard- pressed for time and need easily accessible wisdom from research (synthesis and translation). In addition, a careful assessment of new information and technology may indicate that support via training, technical assistance and quality improvement/quality assurance may be cost-effective for learning new skills and technology and for learning how to do projects that are new to them. EDRA should be ready to figure out how to bridge the gap much more quickly.

References

Scaccia, J., Cook, B., Lamont, A., Wandersman, A., Castellow, J., Katz, J., & Beidas, R. (2015) A Practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC2. Journal of Community Psychology. 43, 483-501.

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171-181.