Architecture has long been established as an academic discipline; however, many of today’s educational needs remain unmet. One of the most persistent challenges in education is the disconnect between teaching theoretical and practical topics, as there continues to be a significant gap in this area. Therefore, it is essential to explore solutions that can better address these needs and foster a stronger, more cohesive connection between theory and practice.

Heath (2010) pointed out five reasons why architectural workshop training is often weak: First, it struggles to simulate real-world situations effectively. Second, different parts of the curriculum are not well integrated. Third, instead of encouraging teamwork, the focus is on individual work. Fourth, the underlying values are often unclear or conflicting. Finally, there is too much emphasis on making things look beautiful, rather than focusing on a logical, process-based approach.

A structured framework is essential. Many studies in architecture education have aimed to improve the effectiveness of pedagogical methods. However, most of these efforts have shortcomings that can be categorized into two main issues: First, many of these studies overlook the importance of communication and the sharing of both practical and theoretical knowledge. Second, while there are various approaches such as transformational design and problem-solving, the implementation of these systems is often hindered by a lack of resources and capabilities in many countries. Therefore, it is necessary to approach the issue from a more fundamental level. In this context, two philosophical perspectives—phenomenology and pragmatism—can provide valuable insights.

image host Figure 1: Structural Relationship between Architecture Education, Phenomenology, and Pragmatism.

Theoretical and practical disjunction

Manen (2007) recites that the word "practice" has long been used in contrast with the term "theory." Valuing the theoretical life over the life of practice hints at high commitment to truth and contemplating the good life. Thus, theory can mean a rebuttal of practice, but it can also be in service of practice, following practice, or as the essence of practice itself.

Teachers tend to discard academic knowledge about teaching as theoretical nonsense; it is simply of little use in the classroom. Teachers often express the opinion that theoretical knowledge does not help them cope in their everyday mission (Henriksson, 2012: 119). Therefore, it is in this disbelief that the foundation of disorientation is perceived and vital to address especially in professions such as architecture.

Pheno-pragmatic relations

Our goal is to leverage the principles of phenomenology and pragmatism to support both the theoretical and practical aspects of architecture.

According to phenomenology, it is possible to develop theories grounded in experiential understanding. On the other hand, pragmatism offers a suitable approach for addressing practical issues, as its focus on practical systems and applications can help synthesize the ideas and principles behind hands-on learning. This perspective is reflected in studies like Sirowy (2010), which describes their activities by stating: “The notion of ‘practice’ in modern, common understanding refers to the process of applying theoretical knowledge, thus carrying instrumental and pragmatic connotations.”

In this article, we propose a construct of phenomenological perception in practice, according to which the structural relation of theoretical perspective, such as phenomenology, is received with practical principles. We refer to this notion as Pheno-pragmatic which Küpers (2011) defines accordingly: “Pheno-pragma-practice” can be interpreted as a special employment and “application” of advanced phenomenology and pragmatism for developing an appropriate understanding and a methodological approach towards creative practice in organizational settings.

Perception is a crucial factor across all aspects of this study, whether in phenomenology, pragmatism, or architecture. As such, it plays a vital role in many areas of education. Another important element influencing the application of the phoneme-pragmatic approach is the extensive cognitive engagement involved in both knowledge and practice. As Smithies (2013) explains, cognitive phenomenology can be defined as the experience associated with cognitive activities such as thinking, reasoning, and understanding.

image host Figure 2: the pheno-pragmatic factor relationship structure.

The process of creating a pheno-pragmatic model

To develop a pheno-pragmatic education framework that balances both theoretical and practical guidance, it is essential to understand and analyze some of the most established, well-studied, and widely used methodologies in architecture education. In an article to be published on Meer, we explore the format and significance of these educational approaches. Below, you can see a simplified diagram illustrating these methods.

image host Figure 3: Tier process for creating the pheno-pragmatic model.

The pheno-pragmatic model

By analyzing the formats presented in each method and filtering them through the processing frameworks, we identify two distinct model paths. The model path represents the overall structure of the method, which can be interpreted based on the instructor’s personal context. The process tree, on the other hand, offers a clear definition and a practical approach to structuring both subjective and objective, as well as theoretical and practical, pedagogies in architecture.

image host Figure 4: the pheno-pragmatic model method and it’s recommended process.

The model can be summarized into three simple steps that, when combined with the appropriate tools, facilitate a comprehensive blend of theoretical and practical learning. Multiple pathways are available, allowing instructors to select approaches that align with their skills and preferences, since, much like life and creativity, it’s important to choose one’s own path rather than impose a single way of thinking on everyone. The three key steps are: fostering individual and group thinking, encouraging experimentation, and promoting interaction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the pheno-pragmatic model provides a foundational framework that integrates our existing educational studies, offering a basis for instructors worldwide. Another key characteristic of the pheno-pragmatic approach is its adaptability; it is considered a living model that can be reformed and reshaped over time according to the needs and possibilities of the educator. While some may view this flexibility as a weakness, it is important to remember that, over time, nothing remains static.

References

Bridging theory and practice in education.
Heath, T. (2010). Learning Architecture, Teaching Architecture: A Guide for The Perplexed Toowong, Old: Denarius Design Books.
Henriksson, C. (2012). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Pedagogical Practice. In N. Friesen, C. Henriksson, & T. Saevi (Eds.), Hermeneutic Phenomenology in Education. Boston: Sense Publishers.
Khajeh pour, H. Kariminia, S. Saghafi, M. R. Piravi vanak, M. (2021). Diary of an Architect, a Pheno-pragmatical Tool in Education. Space Ontology International Journal. 10 (3). 19-30.
Küpers, W. (2011). Embodied Pheno-Pragma-Practice – Phenomenological and Pragmatic Perspectives on Creative “Inter-practice” in Organisations between Habits and Improvisation. Phenomenology & Practice, 5(1), 100-139.
Manen, M. V. (2007). Phenomenology of practice, Phenomenology & practice, volume 1, No. 1, pp. 11-30. Sirowy, B. (2010). Phenomenological Concepts in Architecture, Towards a User-Oriented Practice. (Dissertation).
Smithies, D. (2013). The Nature of Cognitive Phenomenology. The Author Philosophy Compass, 8(8), 744–754 doi:10.1111/phc3.12053.