3.8 Article

A grounded pattern language: testing a methodology for exploring cohousing residents' involvement in shared outdoor spaces

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2023.2289028

关键词

Pattern languages; grounded theory; card game methods; participatory design; residential landscapes; cohousing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a 'grounded pattern language' developed from a study on cohousing residents' participation in shared landscapes. By combining previously adopted pattern language development stages with those of grounded theory, this paper outlines a grounded pattern methodology and its application in the study of cohousing residents' participation in shared landscapes. The paper discusses the benefits and limitations of the grounded pattern methodology observed during its initial testing as a card game.
This paper presents a 'grounded pattern language' developed from a study on cohousing residents' participation in shared landscapes. Pattern languages are recognised in the fields of architecture and urban design as useful tools for documenting commonplace problem-solving ideas in an easy-to-understand format. Since their initiation by Christopher Alexander in 1977, researchers across a wide range of disciplines have adopted the use of pattern languages in research as a way of engaging participants and creating succinct, implementable outputs. However, further methodological refinement for developing a pattern language is required to address criticisms around rigour and transparency. By combining previously adopted pattern language development stages with those of grounded theory, this paper outlines a grounded pattern methodology and its application in the study of cohousing residents' participation in shared landscapes. The paper discusses the benefits and limitations of the grounded pattern methodology as a participatory research, design and theory building tool observed during its initial testing as a card game.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据