When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail

Abstract

Purpose -Taking Community Design Centers (CDC) in the USA as case studies, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a type of service learning increasingly found in colleges of architecture. Typically, the CDC is a model of architecture's civic engagement that makes claims to "give back" to under-served communities and enhance student learning with applied architectural design work. Design/methodology/approach -This project is part of a long-term engagement as participant observer and ethnographer in the field of architecture. Fieldwork in this investigation is presented as four case studies in separate and specific contexts. Findings -Initial findings suggest there are conflicting intentions and aspirations at work through service learning in architecture and its implementation calls into question who or what is served. The author argues architecture's epistemology, pedagogical structure, and ideology precludes effective civic engagement. Originality/value -The value of this research is the understanding of how those with power and resources are able to frame their work in low-income communities as service, even though there is little of worth given. It also demonstrates how stratification is reinforced through institutional arrangements in the USA.

Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship

“…There were, however, some creative solutions presented, including iterative Live Projects, where successive 'courses' built on gains made by the previous group, yet within the context of a single project (Johnson, 2018); or a simultaneous, multidisciplinary effort, where different groups tackled different aspects of the project at the same time (May et al, 2019) Other common administrative challenges include the management of risk relating todoing activities outside the normal studio environment. These typically include extensive risk management assessment (particularly for programmes relating to construction), liability, insurance, medical issues and other similar considerations (Tural, 2017;Gaber, 2014;Middlebrook & Maines, 2016;Corroto, 2014;Fowles, 1984;Clayton et al, 2002;Schwartz et al, 2014;Hughes, 2014). These can place a substantial administrative burden on the educator, especially in the risk-aversehigher education environment (Canizaro, 2012;Harriss & Froud, 2015).…”

“…These can place a substantial administrative burden on the educator, especially in the risk-aversehigher education environment (Canizaro, 2012;Harriss & Froud, 2015). Furthermore, liability for the project's output (be that built or propositional) is a significant issue for higher education institutions whose raison d'etre is education, not necessarily commercial production (Schwartz et al, 2014;Corroto, 2014) Finally, cost issues, including difficulty obtaining and maintaining funding together with the resourceintensive nature of Live Projects, were a barrier cited by 16% of papers (May et al, 2019;Sara & Jones, 2018;Amer, 2015;Black & Doorn, 2015;Clayton et al, 2002;Akerman, 2017b;Ascher-Barnstone, 2002;Cranz, 2018;Fisher & Lofthouse, 2014;Middlebrook & Maines, 2016;Schwartz et al, 2014;Tural, 2017;Warren, 2014;Malmqvist et al, 2004). Once more, this is a significant challenge in an environment of tightening higher education spending and intensive commercialisation and competition.…”

“…Of the reviewed literature, 31% cited issues relating to personnel and relational dynamics, including reliance on engaged students, dedicated pedagogues, strong leadership, effective communication, and a wide variety of expertise. were cited as a barrier to successful projects (Farmer, 2013;Fowles, 1984;Trubiano et al, 2019;Corroto, 2014;Grichting & Sturgeon, 2015;Dubor et al, 2019). In many instances, this issue was embraced as a learning opportunity and became part of the project's DNA.…”

“…(Arboleda, 2020, p.15) "The main issue with participation lies in its codesign premise. Under the pretence of "designing with," it is very easy for designers to continue to impose their own agendas because codesign process usually enables the designer to retain decision-making power" (Arboleda, 2020, p.17) Corroto offers a similar critical reflection noting "there are conflicting intentions and aspirations at work through service learning in architecture and its implementation calls into question who or what is served" (Corroto, 2014). Charlesworth (2018, p.256) refer to this phenomenon as 'design tourism', suggesting that Live Projects, especially those with community aspirations, end up working "for rather than with community groups" (Sara & Jones, 2018, p.330).…”

The Future of Service Learning in International Education

“…Researchers agree that the ideals of educating primarily for self-survival has some serious drawbacks, and service outreach is imperative (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006;Ghoshal, 2005;Mintzberg, 2004;Pfeffer & Fong, 2002;Broberg & Krull, 2010;Coldwell, Joosub, & Papageorgiou, 2012). Service learning as an educational focus encourages students to acknowledge and work with underserved populations in their community while reflecting and gaining knowledge through the experience (Corroto, 2014). Service learning is not relegated to one field or program, and it can be found across university campuses in the curriculum of business, leadership, civic engagement, and elsewhere (Chuang & Chen, 2013).…”