Exploring the architectural design process assisted in conventional design studio: a systematic literature review

The ADP has many conversational moves embedded into its process (Biskjaer et al., 2021). Most of those conversations contain introverted nature because it usually happens with the involvement of a design student and tutor. In the real ground, the design solutions which architects generate will be utilised by a wide range of stakeholders who do not have any voice during the design process. The voice of the ultimate end users was heavily neglected in the architectural design process. Those stakeholders represent heterogenous contextual conditions and span over a broader spectrum of actual requirements that need to be considered while designing (Patria et al., 2018). Collaborative negotiations and information sharing with heterogeneous stakeholders are lacking in ADP. The assumptions and decisions made in the design studio context will not be valid in the real-world context regarding the actual functionality. Even though the ADP happening in a conventional design studio motivates assumption-based solutions, it could generate many socio and psychological issues while operating (Dizdar, 2015; Pallasmaa, 2014).

Human values, their contextual considerations, the socio-cultural context of various stakeholders plus the cultural schema of the designers, which includes lifestyle, beliefs, perception, living environment, are not counted much during the design process (Önal & Turgut, 2017). The user's context and the designer's context are two significant factors influencing the ultimate design solution. The ADP is creating severe blind spots which were not addressed and will lead to less empathetic and less functional design solutions (Biskjaer et al., 2021).

The voices of the different stakeholders are not counted for ADP. According to the literature reviewed and analysed below, the prominence given on getting the users' point of view and prominence given on experiencing real contextual values are limited. The ADP is more focused on refining and fine-tuning the design ideations through a rigorous supervision process, and in architectural practice, this is called design tutoring (Webster, 2004). The attention to refining the design ideation is visible, but getting reflections from real users who intended to use the building to refine the design was missing. This lap limits the opportunity to make changes as per the reflections of the users during the design process (Hong & Choi, 2011). This has been resulted in generating less functional, less human-friendly design solutions even after going through a very systematic process. The inherent phases of ADP are more steady and show less flexibility in getting the real users into the design process.

Identifying the missing phases in the architectural design process to develop more human-centric design solutions is the key focus of this study. Analysing the current design process in the design studios supports identifying potential gaps in the practice. The most common and popular design thinking model: Double Diamond Design Thinking process starts from empathising, wrapped with divergent and convergent thinking from either side. This has given room to look and feel the problem at hand from a broader perspective. Investigating why ADP lacks human-centric approaches is a demanding need.

The missing phase/phases could be the most critical phases that could make the design more practical and grounded. Nowadays, the design solutions provided by the students are stereotypical and do not address the different layers of contextual needs (Cennamo et al., 2011). To make this rectified, a proper diagnosis is needed. This literature review aims to identify existing models of the design process practised across the globe. Later, this identification will prepare a solid foundation for suggestions to amend the design process to make it more empathetic.

As the initial step we browsed articles from well-recognised databases such as SCOPUS, Web of Science, Research Gate, and ScienceDirect. The rationale for selecting those databases is the availability of rich peer-reviewed articles under the subject stream of architectural studies. Peer-reviewed empirical studies written in English were selected at the initial browsing to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria. Peer-reviewed empirical studies written in the English language within the last ten years (2011–2021) were the central focus whilst searching relevant literature for the review (Fig. 3). The reason to select the most recent ten years is to gather the most updated knowledge about architectural design processes currently practised. We established a rubric to filter articles which could explain the architectural design process. Being peer reviewed and published in English, discussions and empirical studies on design process, critical reviews on architectural design phases and studies on design process models were the main rubric in selecting the suitable articles for the review. Rubrics were established in order to find answers to the research questions generated.

Articles were browsed through the advanced search option by using the following keywords. "Architectural Design Process" OR "Design Process of Architects" OR "Designing Process" OR "Design Thinking Process of Architects" OR "Architectural Design Phases and user involvement " OR "Design Phases and user integration" OR “User integration in architectural design phases” were the keywords used in searching. The key words were established to find the most relevant articles which could answer the research questions 1–3 in page no 5. The main aim of this study is to understand the current design process which is practised in the architectural study domain. Therefore, we established the above key words emphasising and giving more focus to the design process or design phases as it will help to answer the research questions constructed. Peer-reviewed empirical studies, literature reviews, peer-reviewed concept papers based on empirical observations and studies were included for initial browsing. Results generated from the initial search were rigorously filtered by reading the Abstract and Introduction. The articles containing empirical studies, observations, studio testing, and quantitative and qualitative approaches to exploring the architectural design process were selected for the second filtration. Duplicates were removed during the second filtration. Most importantly, the articles which contain the studies conducted on exploring the architectural design process, its phases and line up were selected during the first filtration.

Using the above keywords, 3073 articles were found at the initial article browsing. After initial screening, 488 articles were identified and selected for further readings. The duplicates were removed, and 316 remained for abstract reading. After reading the Abstract and Keywords, 123 articles were identified for further readings. Articles containing non-imperial studies, discussion on architectural products but not the process, articles on computer architecture and design learning methods were excluded during the second filtration. After reading the full paper, 73 articles were removed due to no empirical studies on the design process. Furthermore, articles with hypothetical summaries, studies on the artistic process of art studios, and unavailability of full text were removed. Finally, 50 relevant articles were selected for the literature review and analysis.

Further, we developed an inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter the articles which could explain the architectural design process. The articles which are having scientific explorations, explanations under below listed 6 criteria were eligible for the final review. The criteria were generated to answer the research questions created. RQ 1 focuses on identifying the design studio's existing process practised. In order to do that, relevant articles were browsed by using a rigorous filtration process. The criteria were generated through the literature content that is relevant to answer the research questions created. The first question identifies the design process followed in the design studio and criteria 1–5 catering to that aspect. These criteria give a clear view of the activities, features, tools, and mechanisms applied and followed in each phase of the design. The literature, which contains discussions on each phase, have been categorised according to the below criteria.

Criteria one focuses on discussions made in the pre-design stage. According to the literature, the pre-design stage consists of site analysis, user analysis, zoning and concept development. Criteria 2 facilitates the schematic design stage, which consists of several brainstorming activities, feedback, and again advanced concept developments addressing the problems they identified during the pre-design stage. The articles, consisting of discussions on those areas, were categorised under criteria 2. Criteria 3 focuses on discussions made in the design development phase, and it consists of creative activities, drawings, model making and presentations. Criteria 4 has listed the activities and features of the fourth phase of the design process, which consists of detailed drawings, 2D, 3D model making, peer feedback, and Interim critiques. The criteria 5 is listing down the studies conducted on presentations and critics happening in the design studio. Criteria 6 addresses the contents that explain the existence of empathising in ADP. The articles containing the above information necessary to answer RQs have been listed in Table 1.

Criteria 1—discussions on Pre Design stage

Criteria 2—Discussions on Schematic Design Stage

Criteria 3—Discussions on Design Development Stage

Criteria 4—Detail Design Stage

Criteria 5—Presentations/Critics (PR/CR)

Criteria 6—Empathising in Architectural design Process

To analyse the data collected through the rigorous reviewing process, we applied the grounded theory followed by the content analysis method under the umbrella of qualitative data analysis methods. Grounded theory is a specific mechanism that could be applied to build a theory based on the data collected and analysed (Corbin & Strauss, 2020). Grounded Theory will construct a theoretical explanation for the data analysed. Content analysis was adopted to analyse the data generated through the review. The main reason to apply Content analysis (CA) is because it is very supportive in identifying and analysing any mode of data provided in the literature. Content analysis is a flexible methodology for analysing research text data that could be applied in qualitative data analysis (Neuendorf, 2022). Content analysis allows the researchers to reach the broader spectrum of data, including text, figures and graphical interpretations, in an impressionistic, intuitive and interpretative way (Franzosi, 2022).

Content analysis allows the researcher to code the text's data into explicit categories (Weber, 2022). "The goal of the content analysis is to provide knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study" (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The content analysis starts from familiarising data, generating initial codes, examining initial codes and generating subcategories, Reviewing the subcategories, developing main categories, defining those categories and reporting them. Those meaningful clusters will show the data's links patterns, formation, and sequences.

The row data identified in the review were fed into an excel sheet and started coding focusing on finding answers to the research questions generated. Inductive coding methodology was adopted for this study. Furthermore, the design process models developed by the research were counted under the content analysis.

In order to answer the research question 1;” what the design process is followed in a conventional design studio, we found 42 primary codes, 10 secondary codes, 4 categories and 4 major themes.

The primary codes 1–18 in Table 2 are describing the design activities which are done by students at the inception. Stevens et al. (2019) described the scope identification, site analysis and the initial contextual observations are placed at the very beginning at the design process.

The secondary code we identified as Problem seeking consists of 9 major design activities listed as understanding the scope, site analysis, photographic studies, user analysis, user interviews, user observations, brief preparation, observing client requirements and precedents (refer Table 2). Exploring the site, capturing the context through photographs, site analysis are conducted by design students at the very beginning of the design process (Dizdar, 2015). As explained by Önal and Turgut (2017), these initial activities provide a primary understanding about the design scope, context and the user, but it does not give an in-depth understanding about the socio-cultural representation of a particular location. The user interviews, user analysis are conducted by students during initial site visits to understand the user point of views on the given scope (van Dooren et al., 2018). Bickert and Johansson (2012) have explained, the time spent on these initial design activities which are placed at the inception phase of the design process could generate impacts on the design process.

The four major secondary codes listed down under the design objectives are falling under the programming phase. The results depict the programming phase which consists of problem seeking which was placed at the very beginning as the first phase of the design process and we labelled it as the empathising phase, because it consisted of all the activities which are related to empathising in the design process.

Problem seeking is leading to problem identification which consists of SWOT analysis, mapping the information, inspirations and brainstorming (Rahbarianyazd & Nia, 2019a; Raonic, 2015). Building cognitive abilities, logical thinking and rationalising are key objectives which lead the design students to put an initial foundation on the design process (refer secondary codes 1–4 in Table 2). logical thinking and rationalising support on defining the scope and we identified it as the second phase of the design process which has been placed in the middle of the empathising phase and ideation phase.

Primary codes no. 19–29 (refer Table 2) have listed ten design activities which support exploring ideas, creative thinking, developing and testing ideas. As explained by Cikis and Ek (2010), students are starting their visual communication through idea sketches, abstractions, mind mapping, mood boards, developing concepts and conceptual diagrams. During this stage creative thinking supports on bringing novel design ideations to solve the problem at hand (Casakin & Wodehouse, 2021). These ideas get expanded with collaborative brainstorming and peer reflections (Uysal et al., 2012). The results depicted the schematic design stage which consists of Ideation coming after the defining phase.

To describe the fourth phase of the design process which is labelled as design development, we identified 7 primary codes from code no 30 -37 which have been listed in Table 2. The fourth phase consists of developing detailed drawings, 2D and 3D visualisations, physical models along with detailed explanations through detailed drawings developed. As explained by Jabeen et al. (2021) the students are integrating advanced design skills along with their creative thinking to express their design solution. This stage is more focused on expressing the design solution through architectural drawings, models and 3D visualisations to design tutors they met at the design studio (Lizondo-Sevilla et al., 2019). The secondary code labelled as “Moderating” has listed down the activities that students are undergoing to get their design proposal moderated. As reported by Kim (2019) the 3D visualisation and 3D modelling have expanded the visualisation ability of students at the design development stage. At the same time 3D visualisations and 3D models have made design tutors easy to understand the student’s design approach. To prototype the design solution, students have used 3D visualisations and physical models. The results depict the design development phase is more focused on prototyping the design solutions they generated through several modelling mechanisms. We identified this as the fourth phase of the architectural design process which students are undergoing in conventional design studios.

The codes listed from 38 to 42 (refer Table 2) are showing the testing activities which are undergoing by students during the testing phase. Students are getting tutoring from design tutors, interim critics to assess their design solution and peer reflections from fellow novice designers. The testing design solutions come after the fourth stage of the design process which is taking place in the design studio context. Since students are not going to construct their design solution on ground, they will not get a chance to go ahead with the contract documentation stage and final construction stage (Pallasmaa, 2019). And the literature has not brought any evidence to identify another stage which is followed by testing.

As a consequence of the finding of RQ 1, we have developed the design process model which is shown in Fig. 4. The architectural design process which is done by design students have shown a line-up of sequential activities clustered with in 5 phases starting from empathising which takes place at Inception, defining, Ideation occurs in schematic design stage, Prototyping in design Development phase and Testing happening in solutions stage (refer Fig. 4).

Grounded Theory can be identified as a systematic way of constructing a theory based on the data presented and analysed (Clarke & Charmaz, 2022). Further GT helps the researcher to develop his own theoretical underpinning based on the patterns, connections and information presented in the data which he analysed (Charmaz & Henwood, 2019). After analysing the data presented in literature, we got a clear picture of the current design process which is practised in Conventional design studios. The literature we reviewed has generated empirical data to demonstrate the current design process. The data has been summarised in the Table 2. The Table 2 describes the design activities, design objectives, design focus and design phases very clearly with each and every activity they are engaging in. The Design process model we developed is specifically relevant to the architectural study domain. In literature we found many process models of architectural practice which are relevant to real life design projects. But the design process which is undergoing by architectural students was not identified or developed by any of those researchers. The design process model we developed, is clearly showing all the phases and interconnections and missing connections between some phases. This is a new finding and a novel theoretical explanation on the architectural design process. This model we developed is a new finding which is developed through the data presented and analysed empirically. Developing the design process model which is practised in conventional design studio context is the outcome of the application of Grounded Theory in this research. This is a new finding which came out as a result of this literature review.

In order to answer the RQ2; “How has the real user and context addressed during the architectural design process?'' We observed the primary codes, secondary codes and themes mapped in Table 2. We observed the user, and the context have been explored by students during the very first phase of the architectural design process which has been labelled as empathising in our design process model (Fig. 4). The primary codes have listed the design activities which are undertaken by students. We identified 42 primary codes explaining the design activities which have been presented in the articles (refer Table 2). Among those, 8 codes are showing up with user analysis, understanding the scope, user interviews, user observations, brief preparation which addresses the user and contextual demands. We observed that the user and context have been addressed during the very first phase of the design process which is labelled as empathising in our design process model (Fig. 4). The codes listed under the other four phases of the design process do not show any evidence on user related activities. Further, the codes listed from 19 to 42 in Table 2 is sequencing down the design activities which come under the rest of the four phases. None of those phases consist of user integration or user related activities. The codes and categories provide the prominence given to the user and context which have been placed at the very beginning of the design process under the empathising phase.

The results depict, the empathising process is only happening at the very first phase and students carry the information they gathered from the first phase to the other four phases. As explained by Ustaomeroglu (2015) the information related to user and context are reflected in the schematic design stage which is titled as Ideation and design development phase under prototyping. As explained by Jabeen et al. (2021), our results concur with non-existence of users in prototyping and testing phases. Further the codes numbered from 30 to 42 show the methods undertaken by students for prototyping and testing. Design tutors provide their reflections to refine design ideations developed and testing which happens only between design students and design tutors (Shin & Thomas, 2015). We observed the design process has no mechanism to revert back to the user nor context during ideation, prototyping and testing phases. We further, identified this as a missing connection to the empathising phase. We observed the non-existence of user and contextual matters during the other four phases of the design process have created the missing connections to empathy.

In order to answer the RQ 3; “What are the gaps identified in ADP to address the needs of the user?”, we have analysed the design process model we developed (refer Fig. 4). The design process has given lack of space for the students to empathise with the real requirements. It is evident that user and context exist only during the first phase of the ADP (refer Fig. 4). The data which is summarised in Table 2 has coded the design activities which are undergoing in each phase. It is evident that the existence of the user and the contextual factors are not visible after the initial inception phase of the design process. Students have moved ahead with other activities such as idea sketching, modelling, drawing and tutoring (codes listed from 19 to 42 in Table 2), but none of these activities have reflected the integration of the real user or contextual factors. The limited existence of user and context in the design process is the major problem we identified through this study. This creates a vacuum in the design process. The design ideations, detail designs, and final solutions and testing have become isolated phases without any connections made with user and real contextual factors. We identified this as a missing connection to the empathising phase in our design process model (refer Fig. 4).

We observed that the students are moving from the empathising phase to define phase carrying the data gathered during the empathising phase. They, then move ahead to the Ideation phase. From Ideation phase to Prototype phase and then testing phase. The Ideation phase has no codes generated related to empathising and prototyping phase, it has only activities related to modelling, visualising and 3D presentation with no involvement of user nor context. The testing phase consists of design tutoring, critics, and interim assessments, but again no connection made with users to test design solutions or no contextual testing done. But walking back and forth to the empathising phase, testing design ideas generated, testing design solutions generated with the real user and context is not visible in the data we gathered through this literature review. This is the gap we identified in the architectural design process. The possibilities to walk back and forth to the empathising phase and limited empathising activities are found as problematic gaps in the architectural design process. In answering the RQ 3, we observed the missing connections to the empathising phase have created a vacuum in the architectural design process. Due to those missing connections, ADP has become more lintier with no rational iterations made in-between phases. Less addressed empathy is the gap we observed during ADP.