Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards

This paper explores how judges evaluate sustainability of buildings in RIBA award settings in the UK. A qualitative approach drawing on institutional theory is used to understand the ways judges legitimate particular evaluative views. Aesthetics and Sustainability focused logics are found to guide t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Arq (London, England) England), 2016-12, Vol.20 (4), p.325-332
Hauptverfasser: Oliveira, Sonja, Sexton, Martin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 332
container_issue 4
container_start_page 325
container_title Arq (London, England)
container_volume 20
creator Oliveira, Sonja
Sexton, Martin
description This paper explores how judges evaluate sustainability of buildings in RIBA award settings in the UK. A qualitative approach drawing on institutional theory is used to understand the ways judges legitimate particular evaluative views. Aesthetics and Sustainability focused logics are found to guide the evaluative legitimation process. An Aesthetics focused logic is characterised by reliance on expertise, ‘professionalism’ and perceptions of fair practice, whereas a Sustainability focused logic prioritises moral responsibility, scientific evidence and personal experience. Evaluating sustainability was characterised by conflict, concern and contradiction between and within the logics. Evaluation here is seen as a process of constant negotiation between conflicting priorities and managing wider expectations. Different perceptions of what counts in terms of judges’ understandings of legitimacy whether from the profession or wider society were found to provide a way of compliance or commitment to a particular evaluative view of sustainability. Implications of the findings are threefold. First, the analysis shows a way of studying sustainability evaluation in the architectural domain that shifts the literature's dominant focus on technical features to a consideration of the social context, the profession, awards and other evaluative issues including aesthetics. Second, the discussion draws attention to the importance of examining understandings of sustainability evaluation in view of the legitimacy sources judges draw on from the profession, the awards or wider society to justify particular decisions. Finally the study reveals some of the often overlooked difficulties in evaluating sustainability including negotiating conflicts between competing values including aesthetics versus sustainability, challenges in judging scientific evidence and the need for expert legitimation regarding sustainability decisions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution of empirical and theoretical analysis of sustainability evaluation for research in awards as well as the built environment more generally including the study of uncertainty in evaluative design practice.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S1359135517000069
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1904249157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1359135517000069</cupid><sourcerecordid>1904249157</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-66edee02846f1e9c4bb4d739ed6f4be7c442c09b71d13f172352babd63556e253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LxDAQLaLguvoDvAU86GGrmSZNWm-y-AULHtRzyVc1Szddk1TZf2_K7kEUB4YZZt57zLwsOwV8CRj41TOQsk5ZAscpWL2XTYBymuMS2H7q0zof94fZUQhLjIFgVk0yOe9d21kVZ0j1LnqhU297N0PC6XGkjHfXaDnoNxPOkfkU3SBGAOpbFIYQhXVC2s7GDbIOCa_ebTQqDl50SHwJr8NxdtCKLpiTXZ1mr3e3L_OHfPF0_zi_WeSK8CrmjBltDC4qylowtaJSUs1JbTRrqTRcUVooXEsOGkgLvCBlIYXULD3FTFGSaXax1V37_mMwITYrG5TpOuFMP4QGakwLWkPJE_TsF3TZD96l6xqo6qKscEVGQdiilO9D8KZt1t6uhN80gJvR9eaP64lDdhyxkt4m135I_8v6Bi0dhEk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1892580835</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Oliveira, Sonja ; Sexton, Martin</creator><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, Sonja ; Sexton, Martin</creatorcontrib><description>This paper explores how judges evaluate sustainability of buildings in RIBA award settings in the UK. A qualitative approach drawing on institutional theory is used to understand the ways judges legitimate particular evaluative views. Aesthetics and Sustainability focused logics are found to guide the evaluative legitimation process. An Aesthetics focused logic is characterised by reliance on expertise, ‘professionalism’ and perceptions of fair practice, whereas a Sustainability focused logic prioritises moral responsibility, scientific evidence and personal experience. Evaluating sustainability was characterised by conflict, concern and contradiction between and within the logics. Evaluation here is seen as a process of constant negotiation between conflicting priorities and managing wider expectations. Different perceptions of what counts in terms of judges’ understandings of legitimacy whether from the profession or wider society were found to provide a way of compliance or commitment to a particular evaluative view of sustainability. Implications of the findings are threefold. First, the analysis shows a way of studying sustainability evaluation in the architectural domain that shifts the literature's dominant focus on technical features to a consideration of the social context, the profession, awards and other evaluative issues including aesthetics. Second, the discussion draws attention to the importance of examining understandings of sustainability evaluation in view of the legitimacy sources judges draw on from the profession, the awards or wider society to justify particular decisions. Finally the study reveals some of the often overlooked difficulties in evaluating sustainability including negotiating conflicts between competing values including aesthetics versus sustainability, challenges in judging scientific evidence and the need for expert legitimation regarding sustainability decisions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution of empirical and theoretical analysis of sustainability evaluation for research in awards as well as the built environment more generally including the study of uncertainty in evaluative design practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1359-1355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-0516</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1359135517000069</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Awards ; Counting ; Decisions ; Logic ; Negotiations ; Perception ; Profession ; Sustainability ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Arq (London, England), 2016-12, Vol.20 (4), p.325-332</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1359135517000069/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27903,27904,55606</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, Sonja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sexton, Martin</creatorcontrib><title>Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards</title><title>Arq (London, England)</title><addtitle>Arq</addtitle><description>This paper explores how judges evaluate sustainability of buildings in RIBA award settings in the UK. A qualitative approach drawing on institutional theory is used to understand the ways judges legitimate particular evaluative views. Aesthetics and Sustainability focused logics are found to guide the evaluative legitimation process. An Aesthetics focused logic is characterised by reliance on expertise, ‘professionalism’ and perceptions of fair practice, whereas a Sustainability focused logic prioritises moral responsibility, scientific evidence and personal experience. Evaluating sustainability was characterised by conflict, concern and contradiction between and within the logics. Evaluation here is seen as a process of constant negotiation between conflicting priorities and managing wider expectations. Different perceptions of what counts in terms of judges’ understandings of legitimacy whether from the profession or wider society were found to provide a way of compliance or commitment to a particular evaluative view of sustainability. Implications of the findings are threefold. First, the analysis shows a way of studying sustainability evaluation in the architectural domain that shifts the literature's dominant focus on technical features to a consideration of the social context, the profession, awards and other evaluative issues including aesthetics. Second, the discussion draws attention to the importance of examining understandings of sustainability evaluation in view of the legitimacy sources judges draw on from the profession, the awards or wider society to justify particular decisions. Finally the study reveals some of the often overlooked difficulties in evaluating sustainability including negotiating conflicts between competing values including aesthetics versus sustainability, challenges in judging scientific evidence and the need for expert legitimation regarding sustainability decisions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution of empirical and theoretical analysis of sustainability evaluation for research in awards as well as the built environment more generally including the study of uncertainty in evaluative design practice.</description><subject>Awards</subject><subject>Counting</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Negotiations</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Profession</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>1359-1355</issn><issn>1474-0516</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UE1LxDAQLaLguvoDvAU86GGrmSZNWm-y-AULHtRzyVc1Szddk1TZf2_K7kEUB4YZZt57zLwsOwV8CRj41TOQsk5ZAscpWL2XTYBymuMS2H7q0zof94fZUQhLjIFgVk0yOe9d21kVZ0j1LnqhU297N0PC6XGkjHfXaDnoNxPOkfkU3SBGAOpbFIYQhXVC2s7GDbIOCa_ebTQqDl50SHwJr8NxdtCKLpiTXZ1mr3e3L_OHfPF0_zi_WeSK8CrmjBltDC4qylowtaJSUs1JbTRrqTRcUVooXEsOGkgLvCBlIYXULD3FTFGSaXax1V37_mMwITYrG5TpOuFMP4QGakwLWkPJE_TsF3TZD96l6xqo6qKscEVGQdiilO9D8KZt1t6uhN80gJvR9eaP64lDdhyxkt4m135I_8v6Bi0dhEk</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Oliveira, Sonja</creator><creator>Sexton, Martin</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards</title><author>Oliveira, Sonja ; Sexton, Martin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-66edee02846f1e9c4bb4d739ed6f4be7c442c09b71d13f172352babd63556e253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Awards</topic><topic>Counting</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Negotiations</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Profession</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, Sonja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sexton, Martin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences &amp; Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Arq (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oliveira, Sonja</au><au>Sexton, Martin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards</atitle><jtitle>Arq (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Arq</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>325</spage><epage>332</epage><pages>325-332</pages><issn>1359-1355</issn><eissn>1474-0516</eissn><abstract>This paper explores how judges evaluate sustainability of buildings in RIBA award settings in the UK. A qualitative approach drawing on institutional theory is used to understand the ways judges legitimate particular evaluative views. Aesthetics and Sustainability focused logics are found to guide the evaluative legitimation process. An Aesthetics focused logic is characterised by reliance on expertise, ‘professionalism’ and perceptions of fair practice, whereas a Sustainability focused logic prioritises moral responsibility, scientific evidence and personal experience. Evaluating sustainability was characterised by conflict, concern and contradiction between and within the logics. Evaluation here is seen as a process of constant negotiation between conflicting priorities and managing wider expectations. Different perceptions of what counts in terms of judges’ understandings of legitimacy whether from the profession or wider society were found to provide a way of compliance or commitment to a particular evaluative view of sustainability. Implications of the findings are threefold. First, the analysis shows a way of studying sustainability evaluation in the architectural domain that shifts the literature's dominant focus on technical features to a consideration of the social context, the profession, awards and other evaluative issues including aesthetics. Second, the discussion draws attention to the importance of examining understandings of sustainability evaluation in view of the legitimacy sources judges draw on from the profession, the awards or wider society to justify particular decisions. Finally the study reveals some of the often overlooked difficulties in evaluating sustainability including negotiating conflicts between competing values including aesthetics versus sustainability, challenges in judging scientific evidence and the need for expert legitimation regarding sustainability decisions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution of empirical and theoretical analysis of sustainability evaluation for research in awards as well as the built environment more generally including the study of uncertainty in evaluative design practice.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1359135517000069</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1359-1355
ispartof Arq (London, England), 2016-12, Vol.20 (4), p.325-332
issn 1359-1355
1474-0516
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1904249157
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Awards
Counting
Decisions
Logic
Negotiations
Perception
Profession
Sustainability
Theory
title Conflict, contradiction, and concern: judges' evaluation of sustainability in architectural awards
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T21%3A46%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conflict,%20contradiction,%20and%20concern:%20judges'%20evaluation%20of%20sustainability%20in%20architectural%20awards&rft.jtitle=Arq%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Oliveira,%20Sonja&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=325&rft.epage=332&rft.pages=325-332&rft.issn=1359-1355&rft.eissn=1474-0516&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1359135517000069&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1904249157%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1892580835&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1359135517000069&rfr_iscdi=true