Next time, with empathy: revisiting the studio pedagogy for transitional housing for refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Showing empathy can be, at best, a tricky prospect; teaching empathy is downright daunting. The authors taught an interior design studio project that designed hypothetical transitional housing for refugees coming to Canada. As the project evolved, it became imperative that students needed to address tangible issues experienced by the refugee client, namely trauma, rootlessness and marginalization and authentically empathize with their client. Hence, instructors needed to accurately structure and facilitate this engagement. The purpose of this paper is to present a summary of the evolution of this studio project as a case study, the revision of the project's pedagogical goals and establishing a new set of design parameters that engage the “self” and the “other” through alternate modes of thinking and reasoning. Design/methodology/approach The paper is centered on a reflective case study of the studio project and the student's work. The results of the reflection are contextualized within pedagogical framework that emphasize alternate forms of teaching and learning that promotes authentic empathetic engagement. Findings The summary of these reflections arises from organically questioning the nature of traditional design studio pedagogy. It proposes divergent approaches, such as “abductive reasoning”, posing the project as a “wicked problem” to encourages lateral explorations and connections. Originality/value This paper questions the value of prescriptive design process and guides student learning by providing an experimental toolkit that encourages alternative exploration, research and thinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".