Content uploaded by Carole Despres
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carole Despres on Mar 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 3
Implementing Transdisciplinarity:
Architecture and Urban Planning at Work
Carole Després, Geneviève Vachon, and Andrée Fortin
Suburban Utopia, by Josiane Dufault & Mireille Duchesneau © GIRBa
3.1 Introduction
“Sustainable development” and “green buildings” are two popular locutions in
the discourse of many politicians. Best practices are borrowed from countries
around the globe, green certifications such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) in North America are becoming the norm in architecture,
public transportation systems are being built, and eco-communities developed. Yet,
in Canada, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption per capita continue
C. Després and G. Vachon (B)
École d’architecture, Édifice du Vieux-Séminaire de Québec, 1, côte de la Fabrique, Université
Laval, Québec, QC G1R 3V6, Canada
e-mail: carole.despres@arc.ulaval.ca, genevieve.vachon@arc.ulaval.ca
A. Fortin (B)
Département de Sociologie, Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines,
Québec, QC G1V0A6, Canada
e-mail: andree.fortin@soc.ulaval.ca
33
I. Doucet, N. Janssens (eds.), Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production
in Architecture and Urbanism, Urban and Landscape Perspectives 11,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0104-5_3, C
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
34 C. Després et al.
to increase, and the bulk of citizens drive a car to work and either own or dream
about a single-family house. French sociologist Alain Bourdin (2009) affirms that
our incapacity to deal with sustainability is due to our thinking in terms of solutions
(technical, prescriptive), whereas in actual fact it is a complex problem.Hefur-
ther argues that architecture and planning have not yet embraced the complexity
paradigm with regards to multiple contemporary urban configurations, uses, and
representations. By neglecting the complexity of urban life, new problems have
a propensity to be tackled using familiar concepts (e.g. centre/periphery model,
neighbourhood-centred lifestyles), often leading to poorly adapted solutions.
Yet we are witnessing a unique momentum in urban research with a gush of
studies that stem from important societal and urban transformations (e.g. urban
sprawl, geographical mobility, ICT, innovative lifestyles, social diversity), as well
as major theoretical, methodological and technical development (e.g. systems the-
ory, interdisciplinarity, GIS). This new context has generated an abundant and
rich scientific literature endorsing the complexity of urban phenomena. Why, then,
has it not sunk into urban and architectural practices? We suggest that this is
due to the persistent gap between scientific, professional and artistic knowledge,
to the sectoral division of professional responsibilities in architecture and urban
planning,1and to the rigidity of established disciplinary academic traditions. This
chapter is about implementing transdisciplinarity to better define complex problems
and identify customised solutions for sustainable development. It illustrates how
the programme of research and action of GIRBa – the Interdisciplinary Research
Group on Suburbs – constitutes an attempt to stimulate and improve collabora-
tion between scientists, professionals and policy decision-makers, as well as to train
urban planners, architects and social scientists to become “agents of change”.
Our argument is that urban planning and architecture are both disciplines capa-
ble of a constructive dialogue with other domains of knowledge, including the
natural and social/human sciences, due to their multidisciplinary position and
action-oriented identity aimed at transforming the built and natural environment
(Lawrence & Després, 2004). However, these professions’ disconnected respec-
tive training models, i.e. the long-established design studio in architecture and
the more recent “rational scientist” model in urban planning, make it difficult for
these two disciplines to take full advantage of their complementary predispositions
for transdisciplinarity, which could lead to a more effective and better-connected
problem-seeking and problem-solving process with regard to complex urban prob-
lems. By presenting the programme of research and action that GIRBa has been
conducting for the past 10 years, we want to illustrate with concrete examples how
the group was able to bypass the rigidity of academic disciplinary training and nar-
row the gap between research and practice by conducting in an intertwined manner
empirical research, design, and participatory processes on ageing suburbs.
After defining in Section 3.2 the concept of transdisciplinarity as well as the
main characteristics of its mode of production, we discuss in Section 3.3 the
nature of architecture and urban planning as multidisciplinary disciplines and
action-oriented professions. Section 3.4 illustrates how GIRBa has built on the
complementary nature of architecture and urban planning, as well as on their respec-
tive openness to multidisciplinary knowledge, to define its current research and
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 35
action programme on ageing suburbs. The last section highlights the strengths
and shortcomings of implementing transdisciplinarity within academia’s predom-
inantly disciplinary mode of operation and its disconnected professional and
research education programmes, pointing out challenges facing both universities
and professional corporations in terms of revising educational culture.
3.2 Defining Transdisciplinarity
In what ways does transdisciplinarity differ from the more familiar interdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary concepts? Indeed, the words multidisciplinary and interdis-
ciplinary have been used consistently to denote scientific research that involves
a number of disciplines. In multidisciplinary research, each discipline works in a
self-contained manner, while in interdisciplinary research an issue is approached
from a range of disciplinary perspectives integrated to provide a systemic outcome
(Bruce et al., 2004). In contrast, the word transdisciplinary is not confined to sci-
entific research and has been used since the 1970s in debates about teaching and
professional practice. The Latin prefix “trans” denotes transgressing the bound-
aries defined by traditional disciplinary modes of enquiry. For German philosopher
Philip W. Balsiger (2004), the focus of transdisciplinarity is on the organisation of
knowledge around complex heterogeneous domains rather than on the disciplines
and subjects into which knowledge is commonly organised. While research groups
are generally defined as multidisciplinary in view of the diversified nature of their
members’ disciplinary education, the research conducted can be either multi, inter
or transdisciplinary, the latter two implying that the final knowledge is more than
the sum of its disciplinary components (Després, Brais, & Avellan, 2004).
French environmental psychologist Thierry Ramadier (2004) makes a distinc-
tion between the outcome of transdisciplinary research as “knowledge coherence”
and the outcome of interdisciplinary research as “knowledge unity”. For this author,
instead of reducing reality to the parts researchable at the intersection of multiple
disciplinary perspectives, transdisciplinary research includes at once what stands
between disciplines, across disciplines and beyond any discipline, thus combining
all the processes of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. For Balsiger (2004),
implementing transdisciplinarity necessitates the replacement of strict research pro-
tocols with flexible methodological practices that stem from concerted dialogue
around societal problems between academics, policy decision-makers and lay-
people. Figure 3.1 recapitulates what Lawrence and Després (2004) identify as the
recurrent characteristics of transdisciplinary research from the work of numerous
researchers with various disciplinary backgrounds.2These are the dimensions of
transdisciplinarity endorsed in this chapter.
3.3 Architecture and Urban Planning
as “Undisciplined” Disciplines
The title of this section is borrowed from French architect and sociologist Daniel
Pinson, in his contribution to the special issue of Futures on transdisciplinarity
36 C. Després et al.
Fig. 3.1 Characteristics of transdisciplinary research according to Lawrence and Després (2004)
© GIRBa
(Lawrence & Després, 2004). Although Pinson applies this qualifier to urban
planning only, it is appropriate to extend its use to architecture.
3.3.1 The Case of Urban Planning
When Pinson (2004) refers to the multidisciplinary character of urban planning as
a profession, he brings forth three arguments. First, the initial academic training
of urban planners is often completed in various disciplinary programmes. Second,
planning programmes are themselves characterised by multidisciplinary curricula
taught by faculty members trained in diverse disciplines (e.g. architecture, eco-
nomics, engineering, geography, political science, planning, and sociology). Third,
several urban planners work in multidisciplinary teams. The author points out the
challenges brought by this explicit multidisciplinary position: (1) scientific knowl-
edge about what constitutes the city in several fields must be accurately appropriated
and constantly updated; (2) friction can occur during exchanges between the vari-
ous disciplines represented in a planning team; (3) last but not least, planners are
often questioned about the originality of their contributions. This author advocates
that the capacity of urban planners to bring together knowledge from multiple dis-
ciplines in order to define complex urban problems in a relevant way should not
only be highlighted but also developed in a more systematic way during academic
training.
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 37
Pinson (2004) also affirms that the evolution of democracy has changed the
conditions of planning practice, altering the connections between power and
decision-making in relation to physical planning. It is increasingly difficult for urban
planners to act as delegated experts working on the basis of scientific knowledge
and judicial authority; working with citizens is now part of their responsibilities.
Although the concept of “citizen participation” has been used since the early 1970s,
namely with advocacy planning growing out of a reaction to the urban renewal
movement in the 1950s and 1960s (Davidoff, 1965), a new intensity has been
given to public participation since the late 1980s, prompted by societal problems
and pressure from user groups (e.g. environmental activism, peace and conflict
research, international cooperation, women’s studies) asking for their know-how or
tacit knowledge to be considered (Elzinga, 2008). Collaborative planning theory
and practice arose in response to the inadequacy of traditional public participa-
tion techniques to provide real opportunity for the public to make the decisions
affecting their communities. Collaborative methods are designed to empower stake-
holders by actively involving them as legitimate decision-makers, along with public
agencies, in the planning process. The aim is to reach consensus or at least an
acceptable compromise (e.g. Patsy Healy, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK,
2005, 2007; Judith E. Innes, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 2003; John
Forester, Cornell University, USA, 1999; Susan S. Fainstein, Columbia University,
USA, 2000). Urban planners must be able to handle mediation tasks, mixing scien-
tific and political interests. In Canada, the US and the UK, several urban planning
programmes have been or are being adjusted to prepare future planners for these
tasks. For those that are not, graduates are forced to learn in the course of job
training where they are inevitably brought to work with citizens, not always with
the best results. This competency should therefore be reinforced as an urban plan-
ning strength. With their respective books, The Deliberative Practitioner (1999) and
Collaborative Planning (2005), US and UK planners John Forester and Patsy Healy
have made significant contributions to help schools of planning with revising their
curricula.
According to British architect Nigel Taylor (2007), urban planning was much
closer to architecture before the 1960s. Both disciplines were then considered an art,
albeit “applied” or “practical”, in which utilitarian or “functional” requirements had
to be accommodated. He associates this major shift to the 1960s, and summarises
it as the replacement of a physical or morphological view of towns by a definition
of cities as systems of inter-related activities. Cities here are considered to be con-
stantly evolving rather than static entities, including social and economic activities,
as well as a conception of planning as science rather than art, requiring specific train-
ing to support rational decision-making with empirical modes of investigation. One
drawback of this shifting vision is that urban planning gradually lost its expertise on
the physical aspects of projects. Indeed, despite the fact that the focus of this disci-
pline was on planning the built environment, planners got more and more detached
38 C. Després et al.
from the design dimensions of their work, which required, beyond scientific knowl-
edge and consensus-building skills, aesthetic and technical knowledge as well. For
this reason, they have made a more limited contribution to physical interventions,
and became commonly dedicated to regulations and master planning.
3.3.2 The Case of Architecture
This situation gave way to a theoretical and professional reorientation of archi-
tecture toward urban planning in the last two decades or so, with a specific
interest in project-making (e.g. Ian Bentley, Oxford Brookes University, UK; Andres
Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, University of Miami, US; Jan Gehl, School of
Architecture in Copenhagen, Denmark; Bernardo Secchi and Paola Vigano, Venice
University Institute of Architecture, Italy). It gave birth to urban design as a spe-
cific area of academic training now taught in various programmes around the world,
including Laval University in Quebec city, Canada. As a field of professional prac-
tice, an important share of the contributions from urban design have been carried
out by architects and architect-planners (and also landscape architects), owing to
their capacity to formalise and materialise projects through the design process. The
increasing presence of designers in this growing field of practice is sometimes con-
sidered threatening by planning educators who feel the invasion of artist-designers
might jeopardise more “rational” and “scientific” approaches.
Thanks to the development of systems theory (Simons, 1969), complexity
paradigm (Morin, 1977) and constructivist epistemology (Piaget, 1967), design is
now recognised as a legitimate mode of inquiry that requires specific skills, knowl-
edge and intuition to translate multidimensional problems into design solutions. In
What Designers Know (2001), UK architect Bryan Lawson describes the specificity
of design as the combination of both precise and vague ideas, systematic and chaotic
ways of thinking, calculations, and creativity. Lawson qualifies design as interdis-
ciplinary by its very nature, the smallest project making connections between a
variety of factors, calling for different types of knowledge and involving several
actors. Confirming the complexity of the process, US architect Robert S. Harris
(1972) identifies five interrelated dimensions of any design project that correspond
to different modes of inquiry for designers: ecological, societal, operational, expe-
riential, and perceptual. The sequence with which knowledge is integrated into the
design process is not linear but iterative, involving several loops in which hypotheti-
cal solutions are constantly adjusted with additional information brought by clients,
users, decision-makers, and experts. For Harris, design decisions are a result of
group interaction involving individuals who contribute their own creative insights:
“The processes of design must allow for open and continuous externalization [sic]
of ideas and information, and must welcome contributions from numerous direc-
tions and at all times” (1972, p. 1). This implies that designers must develop skills
for working with others and assure that effective decision-making includes being
able to hear what others are saying and respond constructively to one another. One
specificity of design brought up by Lawson (2001), that supports designers in their
collaborative work, is the use of drawings and images to not only convey their ideas
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 39
and converse with others, but to serve as a tool for problem-solving. Drawings and
computer models are indeed not only used to communicate but also to build up
knowledge on multidimensional problems and develop solutions. This creative pro-
cess also calls for intuition. In his seminal work The Reflective Practitioner,US
philosopher Donald Schön (1983) refers to a kind of “knowing in practice” or tacit
knowledge possessed by practitioners, a “capacity for reflection on their intuitive
knowing in the midst of action” and which they sometimes use “to cope with the
unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations of practice” (pp. 8–9).
Although scientific and multidisciplinary knowledge is essential to the defini-
tion of complex design problems (e.g. sustainability), architecture students have
less opportunity compared with planners to interact with researchers from the
social sciences and learn to interpret scientific results from research during their
education. Indeed, architectural programmes across the US and Canada are over-
seen by national architectural accrediting boards, which dictate considerably their
educational content. Conditions for accreditation include 32 criteria for evaluat-
ing student performance classified under three realms: a) critical thinking and
representation; b) integrated building practices, technical skills and knowledge;
c) leadership and practice (NAAB, 2009). The criterion “understanding the role
of applied research in determining function, form, and systems and their impact
on human conditions and behavior [sic]” (NAAB, 2009, p. 22 - criterion a.11)
was just added to the 2009 edition. Although the “ability to work in collabora-
tion with others and in multidisciplinary teams to successfully complete design
projects” (NAAB, 2009, p. 24 - criterion c.1) is also one of the criteria, it is
more difficult to operationalise since faculty members are, with few exceptions,
trained as architects (although their post-professional degrees might be in related
disciplines). Indeed, because design studios constitute the heart of an architect’s
education, as a means for developing students’ “proficiency in using specific infor-
mation to accomplish a task, correctly selecting the appropriate information, and
accurately applying it to the solution of a specific problem”, educators must be
able to teach such processes (NAAB, 2009, p. 21). As a result, few students
have the appropriate training for searching scientific databases for specific cutting-
edge knowledge and translating it appropriately to support decision-making, and
most do not experience working in close collaboration with social scientists. This
separation between research and design continues well into professional practice
where architects’ exposure to research is often limited to conference attendance and
continuing education programmes. Lawson (2001) criticises the fact that despite
its interdisciplinary nature, design often sits uncomfortably in the old-fashioned
structures that he encourages us to challenge. Easier said than done! How can
academics train architects and planners differently within existing educational
cultures?
3.3.3 Narrowing the Gap Between Research and Practice
Social scientists are generally trained to conduct and interpret empirical research
early in their educational training. However, those involved in urban studies (e.g.
40 C. Després et al.
urban sociology, urban geography, urban anthropology, environmental psychology)
are often disconnected from the applied world of planning and urban design, except
for the expert opinions and research they might be required to understand. The gap
between research and design, criticised over 25 years ago by Schön, seems to persist:
“[...] research is institutionally separate from practice, connected to it by carefully
defined relationships of exchange. Researchers are supposed to provide the basic
and applied science from which to derive techniques for diagnosing and solving
the problems of practice” (1983, p. 26). Again, academic institutions might have
contributed to the situation. Even though multidisciplinary training is valued and
encouraged – for instance at Laval University, ten percent of the total credit load
must be acquired outside the student’s main department – in reality, programmes
are often competing for students, namely with regard to annual budget calculation
methods, thus discouraging mobility across disciplines. On the other hand, topics
taught in the social sciences often fluctuate according to both faculty research inter-
ests and the priorities of research funding agencies. This is the case with urban
sociology, which used to be one of the strengths of Laval University’s sociology
program, but where no course on the topic is being taught anymore. This situation
adds to the challenge of bringing together architects, planners and social scientists
to work together on complex urban problems.
On the other hand, a growing number of architects and planners are seeking
specialties beyond their professional education and, for this purpose, engage in a
complementary research programme (Master’s degree in sciences or PhD). In this
manner, they are combining their competencies for collaborative multidisciplinary
work and problem-solving with a capacity to conduct and interpret “scientific”
research. They are becoming privileged knowledge translators, able to interact with
social scientists and interpret research data in terms that can be understood by
designers and integrated in the design process.
UK planner Patsy Healy (2007) challenges us “to make sense of the complexity
of urban life” and manage “the dilemmas of ‘co-existence in shared spaces’” (p. 3).
GIRBa’s experience suggests that together, architects, urban planners and urban
researchers hold complementary sets of competencies that allow for implementing
transdisciplinary research and action programmes that, in turn, could lead to iden-
tify creative solutions to complex urban problems. To reach this goal, however, we
need to train the next generations of professionals and researchers to work closely
together, and to show mutual respect for each other’s knowledge and skills. How
is it possible to do so within the disciplinary limits and constraints of architecture,
planning and social sciences education?
3.4 Bringing Architects, Planners and Social Scientists
to Work Together: The Case of GIRBa
This section presents a modest example of how transdisciplinarity can be opera-
tionalised within academia. More specifically, it tells the story of how GIRBa (in
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 41
French: Groupe interdisciplinaire de recherche sur les banlieues) came to imple-
ment a transdisciplinary programme of research and action at Laval University, in
Quebec City, Canada, with the intention of identifying alternatives to urban sprawl
and its negative consequences on environmental, economic and social sustainabil-
ity. The programme of research and action emerged gradually and almost naturally
as GIRBa’s understanding of the complexity and the multidimensionality of the
problem took shape. The group went from conducting interdisciplinary research, on
the one hand, and architectural and urban design, on the other hand – two distinct
knowledge production modes – to their integration into a transdisciplinary mode,
issuing back and forth between practice-based research and evidence-based design
through collaborative projects. In other words, GIRBa went from the distinct pro-
duction of publicly-funded interdisciplinary research, contractual applied research,
and architectural and urban design professional training, to being an integrated pro-
gramme of research and action where each of the above contributes to the others in
a truly transdisciplinary manner.
GIRBa is an academic research group that annually comprises around 25 mem-
bers – professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students – the majority of
which are trained in architecture and planning, but also in sociology, rural engi-
neering, geography, political science, and environmental psychology. The group’s
headquarters are located in Laval University’s School of Architecture, in the Faculty
of Visuals Arts, Architecture and Planning. GIRBa is part of the broader Research
Centre in Planning and Development (CRAD) that comprises 16 regular faculty-
researchers teaching in the departments of social and human sciences, science and
engineering, administrative sciences, as well as arts and humanities, along with
about 50 graduate students and fellows.
3.4.1 A Context to Narrow the Gap
Between Research and Practice
In 1998, Carole Després, professor of architecture and urban design, and Andrée
Fortin, professor of sociology, teamed up and were granted money from the fed-
eral agency SSHRC to study ageing post-war suburbs. Geneviève Vachon, professor
of architecture and urban design, joined the team, as did Thierry Ramadier, a
post-doctoral fellow in environmental psychology from Paris. The objective was
to understand how people’s residential biography and aspirations influenced their
attachment to their home, and also how their use of a car for daily mobility influ-
enced their experience and representations of the city, suburb and countryside, with
a special attention paid to elderly suburbanites. The mode of knowledge produc-
tion was interdisciplinary. The group addressed the multiple challenges of learning a
common vocabulary since members held various disciplinary backgrounds, of estab-
lishing what was shared at the intersection of the disciplines involved in terms of
theory and methods, of defining a consensual research protocol, and of identifying
powerful interpretative concepts. Apart from several master’s and doctoral students
contributing to empirical research, professional master’s students were working
42 C. Després et al.
in design studios on projects for retrofitting ageing suburbs, on the basis of what
resident surveys, as well as demographic and spatial analyses, had revealed. In par-
allel, contractual research was being conducted by GIRBa’s directors with the help
of graduate students for suburban municipalities and governmental planning agen-
cies (e.g. the development of intergenerational housing types, the revision of zoning
regulations, and the analysis of suburban poverty).
After 3 years of moving back and forth between fundamental research, contrac-
tual research and design, we realised that not much had been published on ageing
suburbs, neither in Canada nor in the US, and there were a lot of negative stereo-
types circulating about these neighbourhoods and their associated lifestyles among
architects and planners from both the private and public sectors. In fact, suburbs
were being left out of various planning debates and new research directions. We
thought our work could contribute to change the situation, at least locally. We wrote
the book La banlieue revisitée (2002, in French), which we purposively addressed
to a wide audience. Together, the chapters describe the morphology and origins of
post-war suburbs, their demographic outlook, the activity of residents, and repre-
sentations of housing and neighbourhoods, as well as propose sustainable design
solutions to retrofit these suburbs.
In the meantime, GIRBa was granted 3 years of funding from one of Quebec’s
main research agencies, FQRSC, to coordinate its work around a programme of
research and action on suburbs, with a strong emphasis on knowledge transfer. The
grant was timely, just a few months in fact before the City of Quebec amalgamated
with its surrounding suburban municipalities in January 2002. This gave GIRBa
a unique opportunity to share its knowledge of post-war suburbs with decision-
makers in a more active and structured manner. GIRBa invited decision-makers
from key government agencies to take part in a collaborative planning exercise on
the future of Quebec City’s post-war suburbs. During the process, two other uni-
versity colleagues joined the group, GianPiero Moretti, professor of architecture
and urban design, Florent Joerin, professor of geomatics and head of the Canada
research Chair in territorial decision-making strategy, as well as a post-doctoral
fellow, Nicole Brais, specialised in urban geography and citizen participation. An
important number of graduate students – researchers and designers – in architecture,
urban design, planning and sociology also took part in the project.
Some additional contextual information will help understand why GIRBa was
able to involve architects and urban designers in such a research and action pro-
gram. First, Laval University was one of the first American universities to offer,
25 years ago, a 2-year professional master’s programme in urban design to archi-
tects. Since then, the programme was opened to landscape architects, environmental
designers, and more recently to planners. Second, in 2001, it became mandatory
for architects across Canada to hold a Master’s degree to access their professional
order. Laval University’s School of Architecture, with its well-established tradi-
tion of scientific research, took advantage of this additional academic requirement
to introduce a series of elective one-semester specialisation modules led by fac-
ulty members specialised in particular areas of leading research (built heritage,
programming, physical ambiances, construction, digital architecture, international
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 43
Fig. 3.2 The functioning of the urban design programme and specialisation module at Laval
University, Canada © GIRBa
cooperation, urban design). Since the three faculty members teaching urban design
were GIRBa members, the research group gradually, and almost naturally, became
associated with the education of urban designers. These combined circumstances
contributed in drawing research and design closer together, allowing for a constant
to-and-from between GIRBa’s funded research projects, urban design studios and
class assignments, and contractual research mandates. Since 2002, as part of manda-
tory urban design studios, about 30 graduate students have annually searched for
original solutions to retrofit ageing suburbs and minimise urban sprawl, in collab-
oration with researchers and decision-makers. Several architectural and planning
students have graduated since then with theses directly related to our research pro-
gramme. Figure 3.2 illustrates the functioning of the urban design programme and
the urban specialisation module at Laval University, Québec city, Canada.
3.4.2 A Research and Action Programme on Suburbs
and Urban Sprawl
In 2002, an 18-month collaborative process was put together, involving over 100
stakeholders in more than 45 activities. The ultimate aim was to build consensus
around: (1) a diagnosis on ageing suburbs, (2) general planning orientations and
means of retrofitting suburbs, and (3) a strategic revitalisation plan. As the process
evolved, GIRBa conducted fast-track research to give a voice to tenants, teenagers,
single-mothers and immigrants, as well as to families with young children who were
under-represented in an initial survey. Overall, close to 500 citizens were consulted
in face-to-face interviews, focus groups and through an Internet survey. GIRBa’s
graduate students were involved at all stages of the project. Their specific contribu-
tion varied according to their own disciplinary training, such as conducting relevant
research and literature reviews and developing exploratory design hypotheses, iden-
tifying appropriate collaborative activities and organising planning sessions, and
44 C. Després et al.
Fig. 3.3 GIRBa’s collaborative planning process on the future of post-war suburbs © Springer
building the communication plan. They also participated in the collaborative activi-
ties, which could involve presenting their own research and hypotheses, taking and
transcribing meeting minutes, redrawing in-progress diagnoses, visions and design
hypotheses, preparing the final reports, updating the website, and also taking care
of logistical aspects. The project is presented in more detail in Després, Brais and
Avellan (2004), in a special issue of Futures on transdisciplinary research. Figure 3.3
summarises the collaborative process.
In 2005, 2 years after completing the collaborative planning exercise, GIRBa
posted an Internet survey on its website and invited all participants to evaluate their
perception of the strengths and weaknesses of the process, as well as of the suc-
cess of its outcome. The overall results suggest a very positive perception of the
collaboration. Several key actors indicated that the general orientations, objectives
and design criteria had made their way into their government agency, something
that GIRBa was able to verify in their official documents and websites. The results
are presented in a chapter of the Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (Després
et al., 2008). Although the GIRBa students’ evaluation of the collaborative exercise
was monitored in the survey, it is not considered in the chapter’s analysis since we
wanted to evaluate first the perception of non-academic participants. Nevertheless,
both a debriefing meeting with all GIRBa’s participants and the survey results con-
firm that the students were very satisfied with what they had learned throughout
the process. First, they had learned a lot about suburbs. Second, they saw at work
the respective rationalities and types of knowledge of different stakeholders, and
realised how they can be complementary but also contradictory, revealing the com-
plexity of the problem. Third, they learned how to plan and conduct a collaborative
project through concrete experience. Fourth, students in social sciences learned to
read maps and drawings and relate research data to specific geographical loca-
tions and intervention scales; designers learned to translate research data into design
objectives, criteria or spatial concepts. Last but not least, students were able to start
building up a multidisciplinary professional network.
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 45
This collaborative strategic planning exercise convinced GIRBa that in order to
solve complex urban problems, four types of rationality and knowledge must be
brought together, which Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action helped
us to articulate: (1) scientific rationality and knowledge or what is generally held
as “what is true” (most often the result of empirical research); (2) instrumental
rationality and knowledge which refers to practicality or to “what is possible”,
the knowledge of how to go about things; (3) ethical rationality and knowledge
or “what is good”, which is linked to customs, beliefs, values and past experiences
that help people to determine what is wrong and what is right on a specific issue;
(4) finally, aesthetic rationality and knowledge, or “what is beautiful”, which com-
prises images and refers to aesthetic judgment and experience, as well as to tastes,
preferences and feelings about the built environment. By bringing together stake-
holders of these four types of rationality and knowledge in face-to-face interaction,
a fifth type progressively emerged which was more than the sum of the four oth-
ers since incoherencies in thought and arguments were revealed and collectively
overcome. Figure 3.4 illustrates GIRBa’s model of knowledge production.
GIRBa’s transdisciplinary program of research and action is since then formally
organised around three types of research: (1) fundamental or scientific research on
suburban morphology, uses and representations; (2) design research mostly con-
ducted in advanced urban design studios; (3) collaborative planning projects with
municipalities, government housing and planning agencies, as well as with the pop-
ulation. Figure 3.5 illustrates the structure of the team’s transdisciplinary research
and action programme.
GIRBa’s approach allows for blurring the frontiers not only between academic
disciplines and designers, but also between academia, practitioners, decision-makers
Fig. 3.4 GIRBa’s model of knowledge production for complex problems © GIRBa
46 C. Després et al.
Fig. 3.5 GIRBa’s transdisciplinary research and action programme on suburbs © GIRBa
and citizens. The group’s experience in working on the issue of ageing suburbs
strongly supports the following points: (1) scientific research is not performed
in the same way when conducted in close and constant collaboration between
researchers from different disciplines;(2)design research is a legitimate and
autonomous way of producing knowledge for a given problem, one that accepts
intuition and uncertainty; (3) finally, action research has proved to be an alternative
mode of knowledge production that recognises practical reasoning,material and
organisational constraints, and which values public debate.
3.4.3 The Limitations and Strengths of Operating
Within Academia
The limitations and strengths of GIRBa’s work can be summarised as following:
on the one hand, a limited power within academia to actually implement design
solutions and policies; on the other hand, a definite capacity to empower future
generations of architects, planners and social scientists and decision-makers with
an understanding of the complexity of urban problems and a concrete experience of
how to work in a collaborative manner as professionals, taking advantage of their
respective skills and knowledge.
Throughout its involvement in community projects and citywide strategic plan-
ning, GIRBa earned respect from the population as well as from public and private
planning agencies. The team received an accomplishment award from Quebec’s
Architecture Institute (Ordre des architectes) for its contribution to making sub-
urban culture better understood by the profession. Faculty members and graduate
students are frequently contacted by journalists to comment on new developments
and projects in Quebec City, as well as by other municipalities in the province who
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 47
are also faced with the phenomenon of ageing suburbs. Carole Després is sitting
since January 2009 on a task force mandated with developing a sustainable mobil-
ity plan for Quebec City; urban sprawl and increasing car dependency are at the
heart of its concerns. Requested by the above task force, Geneviève Vachon was the
head of two urban design studios in the autumn of 2009 with 30 Master’s students
reflecting on the types of environments that might favour sustainable mobility in
Quebec City.
Over the years, GIRBa has become a real incubator for transdisciplinarity
research for theses and studio projects, as well as a training centre that initiates
future social scientists, architects and planners to collaborative planning and design.
GIRBa students are trained to work differently, understanding the need for scien-
tific evidence, technical and aesthetic knowledge, as well as ethical considerations.
Our program of research and action is a good example of the potential contribution
of universities in training professionals and researchers with different disciplinary
backgrounds to work together, which may very well have positive effects on all
levels of society. Several of GIRBa’s graduate students are now working as civil
servants in government agencies or in private firms in architecture, urban design and
planning; they understand suburbs and are able to coordinate collaborative planning
processes.
Ageing suburbs are now perceived as a valuable asset for the City, which is
slowly endorsing a polynuclear urban model, with older suburbs acting as urban
stepping-stones. The combination of quantitative and qualitative research, design
and participatory processes certainly contributed toward a better understanding of
the issues and challenges at stake with regard to the retrofitting of these neigh-
bourhoods. The resulting “transdisciplinary” knowledge underlies the complexity
of the problem and its multi-faceted reality. Even though a strategic plan for their
requalification has yet to be adopted, several government authorities have explicitly
integrated ageing suburbs into their policy orientations.
3.5 Conclusions
GIRBa’s experience illustrates how students in architecture, urban planning and
social sciences working closely together with decision-makers and stakeholders
can make a significant contribution to understanding complex urban problems and
identifying solutions for strategic planning. It constitutes an example of how aca-
demic institutions can play a leadership role in training future professionals to
tackle sustainable development with approaches adapted to the complexity. The
team has learned from its own experience that: (1) research competencies must
cover the large spectrum of urban knowledge to increase architecture’s chances of
effectively contributing towards sustainable and durable cities; (2) architects, plan-
ners and researchers must be trained as agents of knowledge transfer; (3) design
research must be considered as a legitimate way of producing knowledge; and (4)
48 C. Després et al.
professionals and social scientists should not only be taught not only how to work
on collaborative projects but also how to put them into practice.
In Les Sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur, Edgar Morin (1977)
invites us to revise pedagogical models in order to deal with the complexity of our
contemporary world. GIRBa’s experience is an example of what can be done within
existing academic structures, reminding us that universities are not only the locus
of knowledge production but also of knowledge transmission; they are institutions
where one learns to produce knowledge and to apply it (Lawrence & Després, 2004,
p. 398).
Notes
1. Urban planning is used indifferently from town planning or city planning throughout the text.
2. See also Handbook of transdisciplinary research (Hirsch Hadorn, et al., 2008).
Bibliography
Bourdin, A. (2009). Du bon usage de la ville. Paris: Descartes.
Després, C., Brais, N., & Avellan, S. (2004). Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs:
Transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity in action. In R. J. Lawrence & C. Després (Eds.),
Transdisciplinarity.Futures, 36(4 Special issue), 471–486.
Després, C., Fortin, A., Joerin, F., Vachon, G., Moretti, G. P., & Gatti, E. (2008). Retrofitting
postwar suburbs: A collaborative planning process. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffman-Riem,
S. Biber-Klem, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joyee, C. Pohl, C.V. Weismann & E. Zemp
(Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 327–341). Heidelberg: Springer.
Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affair Review, 25(4), 451–478.
Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Boston: MIT Press.
Fortin, A., Després, C., & Vachon, G. (Eds.). (2002). La banlieue revisitée. Québec: Nota Bene.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalisation
of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system. A critique
of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harris, R. S. (1972). A model for designers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Architecture,
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
Healy, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: A relational planning for our times.
London: Routledge.
Healy, P. (2005). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd edn.).
New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffman-Riem, H., Biber-Klem, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joyee, D.,
Phol, C., Weismann, C.V., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. (1996). Consensus building and complex adaptative systems. Journal of
American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423.
Lawrence, R., & Després, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. In R. J. Lawrence & C. Després
(Eds.), Transdisciplinarity in theory and practice.Futures, 36(4 Special issue), 397–405.
Lawson, B. (2001). What designers know. London: Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd edn.). London:
Architectural Press. (Original work published 1980).
Morin, E. (1999). Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur. Paris: Seuil.
3 Implementing Transdisciplinarity 49
NAAB (The National Architectural Accreditating Board Inc.). (2009). 2009 conditions for
accreditation.http://arch.usc.edu/content/pages/cm/uploadedmedia/2009_conditions_final_
edition1253295944370.pdf retrieved 27 May 2010.
Pinson, D. (2004). Urban planning: An undisciplined discipline. In R. J. Lawrence & C. Després
(Eds.), Transdisciplinarity in theory and practice.Futures, 36(4 Special issue), 503–513.
Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Arena.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial, 1996 (3rd edn.). Boston: MIT Press.
Taylor, N. (2007). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage.
Vachon, G., Després, C., Nembrini, A., Joerin, F., Fortin, A., & Moretti, G. (2007). Collaborative
planning and design for a sustainable neighborhood on Quebec city’s university campus.
In K. Thwaites, S. Porta, O. Romice, & M. Greaves (Eds.), Urban sustainability through
environmental design (pp. 129–135) London: Routledge.
