Part I The Development of Social Design

The movement of social design took form as a result of frequent critiques of the prevalent trend of formalism in architecture. Formalism conceived of buildings more as sculpture than human habitat. Growing numbers of architects shifted their focus to the needs of building occupants, turning to social sciences as a source of reliable information about behavior and well-being. The liaison between design and the behavioral sciences gave rise to the concept of social design. Sommer (1983) defined social design:

Social design is working with people rather than for them; involving people in the planning and management of the spaces around them; educating them to use the environment wisely and creatively to achieve a harmonious balance between the social, physical, and natural environment;.., social designers cannot achieve these objectives working by themselves. The goals can be realized only within the structures of larger organizations, which include the people for whom a given project is planned.

The following table illustrates key differences between social and formalistic design practices. For example, social design emphasizes human-oriented as compared to institution-oriented procedures and implementation.

Social designers are distinguished from more traditional counterparts by an explicit and primary commitment to the occupants. The litmus test of a social designer is the attempt to obtain systematic input form present or future occupants. The term social design reflects the combination of participatory planning methods and social science concepts. In particular, behavioral science refers to academic fields as anthropology, psychology, sociology, psychiatry and human geography. Behavioral science input will most likely occur at programming stage through needs analysis or consultation, and later during post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

The major theoretical influences upon social design came from ecology and humanistic psychology. The cardinal assumption of ecological theory is interdependence-everything is connected, and a change in any aspect will ripple throughout a system. Humanist psychology assumes that people develop and respond to an outside environment. Humanistic psychology emphasized the legitimacy of individual experience and the potential for human growth.
According to Sommer, divisions of social design include user input and control and behavioral science. Use input and control covers participatory design and vernacular art and architecture; Behavioral science included the following steps: user needs analysis, consultation, post-occupancy evaluation, and design research.

Part II Key Processes of Social Design

User Needs Analysis (UNA)
Needs analysis of building occupants is a defining feature of social design. At the outset, designers rely on needs they inferred and extrapolated from basic research studies and from theory. The distinctive feature of UNA (User Needs Analysis) is that it is carried out in a systematic manner. This requires the use of standardized techniques for collecting information (interviews, questionnaires) and some sampling of occupants and their activities.

An assumption in a needs assessment survey is that potential occupants know what they want and can communicate this to the designer. Social designers may use drawings, models, color schemes that are tangible to the prospective occupants. The needs assessment survey will be more meaningful when social designers have spent some time with the occupants and know their needs.

Bringing In a Behavioral Consultant
The quickest way to obtain social science input is to bring social scientist into the planning sessions as a consultant. Social scientists can be a consultant to the architect, to the developers or owners, and to public agencies, and community groups. Bringing the behavioral consultant into planning and design can remedy limitations of UNA, such as extended time and costs involved, unidentifiable potential occupants, and the widening gap in knowledge between designers and occupants. The most crucial task of consultants is to identify the clients. There is evidence that behavioral consultants can have more impact working directly for the client than for the architect. Whatever the roles the behavioral consultants may assume, they can contribute most effectively to the design process if they are brought in before all the major decisions have been made.

Direct Participation of Occupants
Obviously, the most direct means of including user opinion is to have the occupants themselves present in the design sessions. Unfortunately, direct participation of occupants is the most frustrating and most difficult means of seeking input. User participation rests on the assumption that the environment is composed of small pieces or units that can be planned separately, but must fit together into a larger meaningful whole.

The scale of the building determines the proportion of occupants that can be involved. The smaller project, the more feasible it is for people to share in the planning process. A successful participation requires the following conditions:

1. A client who consciously seeks to promote the well-being and morale of the occupants.
2. Designers with big ears willing to listen to the occupants.
3. Occupants willing to commit themselves to the hard work of learning necessary knowledge to contribute effectively to the design process.
4. Sufficient time and freedom from pressure for designers and occupants to develop productive working relationships.
5. Information aids and tools to facilitate the work between professional architects and lay people.

Despite some overlapping participatory design means, the entire group does the planning, whereas needs analysis is pre-design and part of the programming phrase. Education regarding process activities is a crucial prerequisite for successful user participation.

Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
There is increasing recognition that systematic examination of working buildings can provide useful information. POE can encompass something as large as a housing project or as small as a single item, such as lighting and color. The most prevalent form of POE is standardized survey questions. Designers, clients and occupants should participate in the development of survey questions. Evaluation is more than a list of weaknesses and problems, but also about the good that can guide future design. The chief obstacle of POE is the cost in time, effort, and dollars.

In some way, POE can be used to determine whether the design resulting from a needs analysis has been successful. POE is distinguished from academic research in that: (a) It tends to focus on single type of building; (b) The investigator describes rather than manipulates or changes a setting; (c) The work is conducted under natural conditions rather than in a laboratory; (d) the major goal of study is application of the results to improve the same or similar setting. POE is a hands-on approach that often requires the investigator to spend some time in the project after completion.

Part III The Question Of Productivity

As with all other architects, social designers are also haunted with the question of productivity. In the case of the design of school buildings, will attractive and stimulating classrooms lead to higher student test scores?
Sommer clarified that before answering the question of productivity, one must recognize the crucial difference between user response to a building and productivity gains. Both UNA and POE are methods of assessing responses to the environment rather than directly measuring gains in output. Sommer doubted the assumption that output gains can be traced to specific design elements. Another problem with the productivity question involves the nature of proof that design makes a difference. Sommer was pessimistic about the long-range possibilities for demonstrating productivity effects of design changes, but he was optimistic regarding the possibilities for demonstrating behavioral effects of design changes.

What is of concern from the reviewers' standpoint revolves around what we know about student behavior in schools. We may rightfully assume that behavior influences student outcomes. So, if design elements influence behavior, then it is logical to assume that they indirectly influence output. *

Part IV Implications

The concept of social design has revolutionary implications for the design of school buildings or learning environments. Too often, the schools are designed and built on a factory model. Social design calls for two crucial procedures in school design: The introduction of behavioral science and various forms of participation by occupants.*

Social design necessitates the needs analysis of students, faculty, and community in school building design. This can be achieved in various forms, such as employing an external behavioral consultant or including students and faculty in the design process. It is also preferable to conduct Post-Occupancy Evaluations to benefit future design. Finally, it is realistic to attempt to evaluate the school design by assessing the students' behavioral response to the environment, and somehow to relate design to the rather slippery benchmark of student achievement scores and other outcomes.*

This book is definitely worthy of a place on any educational planner's or architect's reading list. How the physical environment influences behavior should be of major concern in all planning and design activities, and especially in master planning for educational facilities.*

_____________

* Reviewers' comments.