Workshop 2 has been an important for me to clarify how my teaching practice already aligns with established Action Research approaches.
Working through these questions helped me articulate that my ARP does not rely on a single research tool, but on a combination of qualitative methods embedded within studio teaching. Rather than introducing new instruments such as interviews or questionnaires, I draw on methods that are already part of architectural education and that are appropriate to the ethical sensitivity of working with housing and domestic life.
In line with Action Research models that accept iteration and “mess” as part of rigour (Cook, 2009), these methods are deliberately flexible and responsive.
Studio artefacts as qualitative data
One of the primary methods in this ARP is the analysis of studio-generated artefacts. These include drawings, collages, poems, models, speculative user profiles, and final visualisations that place users within designed spaces.
As discussed in the workshop, document and artefact analysis is a recognised qualitative method, particularly within practice-based and art-and-design research. In this project, these artefacts function as traces of how students understand home, care, wellbeing, and socio-economic constraint at different moments in the studio sequence (Schön, 1983; Koshy, 2010).
Importantly, the focus is on patterns across the work rather than on individual students. This allows me to analyse learning processes without treating students themselves as research subjects.
Observation, field notes, and action learning
A second method is tutor observation, supported by field notes taken during studio activities. This includes tutorials, peer discussions, and whole-group pin-ups. These moments often reveal shifts in understanding more clearly than formal feedback or written reflection alone.
The speculative user workshop, in particular, functioned as a form of action learning set, where students presented challenges to one another, questioned assumptions collectively, and revised their thinking in response. My role in these moments was not to provide answers, but to structure the conditions for reflection and dialogue.
Notes taken during these sessions supported later reflection on how students’ assumptions shifted when issues such as income, tenure, and eligibility were made explicit.
Reflective practitioner enquiry
Finally, the ARP relies on reflective practitioner enquiry, through which I critically examine my own teaching decisions over time. Having taught this studio for six years, I was able to compare this cohort’s responses with those of previous years and reflect on how relatively small changes in sequencing produced different outcomes.
This aligns closely with the Action Research Spiral: observation leads to reflection, which informs planning, action, and revision. I understand my current ARP as one part of the cycle of this process, with the revised studio plan for next year forming the starting point for the next cycle.