Tools and Biases: Student research and outreach methodologies in public interest design education

This paper outlines the difference in research methodologies undertaken by architecture students in traditional design studio courses, as opposed to courses engaging in Public Interest Design (PID). An introduction is provided into the principles ofPID, the primary characteristic of which is described by the recipients of the 2011 Latrobe Prize as work that 'serves the public in some way, and that is not created for private interests alone'. There has been increasing emphasis on this mode of practice in schools of architecture, and the paper outlines the curriculum of a research-intensive public interest design studio course at Lawrence Technological University, where students develop and test their own tools for community-based research and engagement.
In traditional studio contexts, students are frequently presented with projects lacking real 'clients', and only an abstract interpretation of potential users. This creates a level of disconnect to the proj ect. Given that direct user input is essential to PID work, student research must move beyond typical abstract analysis of site, program, context, etc. By analysing internal case studies exploring the comparative impact of various tools utilised by students to gather information and facilitate dialogue with community partners, this paper explores the biases inherent in some of these methods. Reflection from both the instructor and some of the approximately 130 students who have participated in this course over a ten-year period, reveals moments of both success and failure. This paper underscores the importance of inclusive processes, the ethical imperative behind such research methods, and the need to select appropriate research tools to reduce bias and maximise impact.