Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2631-6862.htm Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship Live project exploration of scholarship Sebastian G. Smith and Karine Dupre Department of Architecture, Griffith Univeristy, Southport, Australia, and Julie Crough Department of Teaching and Learning, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to investigate trends and themes within the literature pertaining to live projects, and in so doing, highlight possible areas of future exploration and research. Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilises a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) method, wherein keywords and phrases are entered into selected citation databases generating a reproducible list of literature. This is then refined using a specified list of criteria and read for relevance. The resulting literature forms the basis of qualitative and quantitative analyses and review. Findings – The reviewed scholarship demonstrates a surge in publications since the early 2000s, with 75% of publications originating from the USA, Canada, or the UK Furthermore, themes related to live project definitions, outputs and rationales were examined, demonstrating that common factors such as “community”, “construction” and “pedagogy” are not mutually exclusive but tend to overlap, making the topic hard to define. These results also demonstrate a proclivity for projects with a built output. Barriers to live projects were also assessed, and it was found that administrative hurdles, such as time and budget constraints, were the biggest concern to live project practitioners. Finally, critical voices were examined and showed that live projects need to reflect on the nature of their engagement with the community. Research limitations/implications – This method, while capturing a substantial portion of the published scholarship, does not capture all live project literature due to limitations such as language and a strong focus on peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, this research only captures literature that has been published. It does not reflect the variety and extent of live project activity occurring globally. For reasons such as unfamiliarity and inconsistencies with the use of live project terminologies, doubtless many unpublished live projects are conducted–yet not represented in these findings. This study may help live project execution by providing valuable examples of existing trends. Originality/value – This paper captures the metadata from 110 live project publications, allowing for wide-ranging analysis, categorisation and discussion on the topic. Keywords Live project, Design build, Community design, Pedagogy, Systematic quantitative literature review Paper type Literature review 1. Introduction In reviewing live project literature, this study uses the term “live project” to describe “the negotiation of brief, timescale, budget and product between an educational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit” (Anderson and Priest, 2014, p. 13). In the author’s opinion, the term “live project” better reflects what Harriss and Watt and Cottrell describe as the “liveness” of the real-world engagement (2018; 2006, p. 98), a uniting commonality and driving force between all the projects, regardless of structure, motivation or output. However, other, widely used nomenclatures containing overlapping and occasionally contradictory meanings are commonly found in the existing literature. These include, but are not limited to, design-build, community design, service-learning and learning-by-making (see Figure 1). Defining a live project is equally challenging. The above-cited definition offered by Anderson and Priest (2014) provides a useful operating framework. It rigorously establishes the context of a typology known for its variation in budget, timescale, product, group size, client, etc. Furthermore, this definition consciously avoids categorising live projects using Received 9 March 2022 Revised 7 June 2022 1 August 2022 6 September 2022 Accepted 11 September 2022 Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research © Emerald Publishing Limited 2631-6862 DOI 10.1108/ARCH-03-2022-0067 ARCH Figure 1. A Euler diagram describing live project terminology project rationale or disciplinary focus, identifying the exercise as “problematic” (Anderson, 2017, p. 3). Yet, many pedagogues still choose to frame their live projects using these terms, assessing the project’s position in relation to institutional and academic frameworks. Moreover, one could argue the intensely contextualised and contingent nature of live projects lends itself to multiple, idiosyncratic definitions that capture the spirit in which a particular live project is being conducted. Examples include scholars such as Chamel (2016), Widder (2014) and Verderber (2021), who describe live projects as motivated by student acquisition of construction knowledge. Design/build as an alternative delivery method focusses on a more intuitive approach based on the creative powers of manual labour and the interaction of the designer with the material world. (Chamel, 2016, p. 64) Live projects celebrate the benefits and responsibilities of distributed authorship. Students who have learned first hand the difficulties of precisely completing even rudimentary construction place higher demands on building technologies instruction. (Widder, 2014, p. 31) The main objective of e-d/b curricula is to expose the student to the design and actual construction of a building, outdoor spaces such as playgrounds, bus shelters, constituent building componentry, exhibits and objects, including furnishings. (Verderber, 2021, p. 704) Other scholars, such as SayedSaleh et al. (2021) and Tural (2017), describe live projects as a means of exposing students to community issues. A design build studio approach is a design process that involves the users, local community and professionals in the entire development of a project (Sayed Saleh et al., 2021, p. 828) Primarily, community design is a movement promoting a broad understanding of social and environmental justice by involving people in the process of shaping and managing their environment. (Tural, 2017, p. 255) Charlesworth et al. (2012) notes this is part of the difficulty when defining live projects, yet one can also see it as an opportunity to explore the rich variety of live projects being conducted. This paper, therefore, uses a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) method to provide a body of literature for the exploration of broader themes. A SQLR is deemed appropriate, as “. . . the methods used to survey the literature, and then select papers to include, are explicit and reproducible” (Pickering and Byrne, 2014, p. 538). Furthermore, a SQLR delineates the boundaries of the research by providing specific search terms, databases, inclusions and exclusions in a predetermined series of steps. In this way, both readers and future researchers can clearly identify the scope and parameters of this particular review. In this review, two exploratory research questions are examined. Firstly, what is the current state of research surrounding live projects? When and where are live projects being studied, and can gaps and patterns be identified? Secondly, this paper examines the varied world of live projects – their motives, output, definitions and perceived barriers, not to define a taxonomy or redefine the typology, but to identify and illustrate the rich variety and thematic commonalities found in the literature. Finally, emerging themes are discussed, and a critical analysis of the method is presented. 2. Research method The paper utilises a SQLR methodology to gather the body of scholarship used in the subsequent analysis. This approach systematically uses iterative keyword and phrase searching to generate reproducible, quantifiable results with limited scope for partiality (Pickering and Byrne, 2014). The aim is to demonstrate a broad quantitative overview of the live project field of research to identify gaps and themes for future research. Furthermore, this body of scholarship forms the basis of a qualitative analysis of themes, including live project definitions, rationales and barriers. Much like grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Walker and Myrick, 2006), any text related to the themes was extracted from the identified articles. This text was then subjected to open and axial coding, wherein abstract categories were constructed inductively. Codes were created for each new theme identified. Subsequently, these codes were grouped and refined when conceptually similar or related themes formed. These themes were developed through constant comparison. Unlike grounded theory analysis, the process was not cyclical, as the body of literature was Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH established using the SQLR method. Furthermore, the concepts (or categories) established by the process did not form or were not integrated into a theoretical framework. Instead, the identified concepts form the basis of discussion of trends. 2.1 The SQLR search process A SQLR follows a defined set of steps (Pickering and Byrne, 2014). Initially, a test of keywords and associated synonyms was conducted to assess their relevance (see Step 1 – Table 1). Although extensively used in the British and Australian contexts, the term “live project” has several interchangeable and overlapping nomenclatures (Harriss and Widder, 2014; Anderson, 2017; Salama, 2015b), some of which differ in terms of rationale and output, but share a commonality in their position within academia (refer to Figure 1). The most frequently cited are “Design Build” and “Community Design” and were therefore included in the initial search assessment. Given the broad aims of the literature review, both the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS) citation databases were used. This initial search yielded 13,441 combined English language results. Pickering and Byrne (2014), these initial results were refined using several inclusionary and exclusionary steps. There was no limitation placed on the publication date, nor was the search refined by category or keyword filter as it was difficult to apply consistently across both databases. Instead, the term “Architecture” was added to the keyword search terms (see Step 2 – Table 1). It is commonplace to then refine the type of documents searched to only peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles as they are considered rigorous and the quality of the results robust. In the case of this paper, however, the decision was made to include conference proceedings, book chapters and books also. It was felt that the insights gained from a more comprehensive search would outweigh the value of limiting the extent to peer-reviewed journal articles. Furthermore, the “project based” or “case study” nature of live projects may lend itself to inclusion in a conference paper yet may not warrant inclusion in a journal article. Missing these valuable insights would have been counter to the study’s aims. 2.2 Review criteria The first review involved manually reading the title, abstract and keywords to ascertain relevance to the topic. This involved assessing the content for connections to education and Table 1. The systematic document selection process Step 1 2 3 4 5 Inclusion and or Exclusion Initial search -English Language “Live projects” OR “Design build” OR “Community design” “Architecture” included in search terms “Live projects” OR “Design build” OR “Community design” AND “Architecture*” Refined by document type -Journal article, conference proceeding, book chapter and book Review 1* Relevance review – Title, abstract and keywords reviewed for relevance 436 744 1,180 71 103 174 Review 2* Final reading and exclusion of irrelevant, overlapping, doubled up, or irretrievable documents removed 34 76 110 SCOPUS 8,831 671 WOS 4,610 3,784 Total 13,441 4,455 number of documents Note(s): *Refer to exclusionary review criteria disciplines related to the built environment. This step was necessary as several issues became commonplace for exclusion. Primarily, initial exclusions occurred due to the layered meanings of keywords. For example, the term “architecture” was often used in relation to information technology or to describe an organisational system. In addition, the term “design build” was often used in relation to a procurement method. Furthermore, the term “community design” was occasionally used to describe a “grassroots” project or organisation that was community-centred yet did not necessarily include the involvement of education. Several papers were also deemed irrelevant because their initial inclusion resulted from search term errors. For example, databases interpreted the search term “Design build” with results such as “. . . design, build . . .” or “. . . design. Build . . .” or “. . . the design builds on . . .”. These were commonplace and clear exclusions to make. The resulting 174 documents were then read in full for relevance, again focussing on themes relating to education. Furthermore, any article that appeared in both citation databases or a conference paper and a journal article were excluded. Finally, unretrievable documents, such as older, undigitised articles, were omitted. This resulted in 110 documents. These were analysed using both a categorisation and metadata approach. For each paper examined, the following information was taken: Author(s), year of publication, document type, geographic location, method, keywords, discipline(s) involved, the output or product, definition of live project, project rationale and barriers to live project implementation. 3. An overview of live project scholarship Metadata obtained from the resulting documents was analysed to illustrate an overview of publication history and the current state of live project scholarship. It is worth noting two important limitations. Firstly, this review does not capture all live project literature. Exploratory reading around the subject indicates several important publications omitted by the SQLR method. These papers were added to the discussion and analysis section to make the review as complete as possible. Furthermore, the results only capture published literature. It does not reflect the variety and extent of live project activity actually taking place globally. For reasons such as unfamiliarity of the field’s terminologies or a scarcity of funding to write and publish the results of a live project, undoubtedly, many unpublished live projects are conducted yet not represented in these findings. 3.1 The volume scholarship by publication date In establishing the live project as an active topic for discussion and research, the date and frequency of the publications were plotted. The result shows a steady increase in research output from the early 2000s, peaking in 2019. As several scholars indicate, live projects are not new to architectural education. Whether they originated in the 19th century (Canizaro, 2012), the 1920s (Salama, 2015b) or during the social reawakening of the 1960s (Portschy, 2017), they have been a part of architectural education before the rise in live project scholarship as indicated in the results. This raises an important question–why was not there more live project scholarship before this point? In attempting to answer that question, one must first recognise that there has been a relatively recent and sustained effort to increase the quantity of scholarly research in the field of architecture (Luck, 2019). This has largely been driven by a call for more architecture research by major national architectural institutions including the Royal Institute of British Architects (Collins, 2014), the European Association for Architectural Education (Declaration Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH on Architectural Research, 2011) and the America Institute of Architects (AIA Research Agenda, 2019). This has likely contributed to an increase in the overall number of scholarly articles relating to architecture and, therefore, live projects. Institutional factors may have also curtailed the practice of live projects. With architectural education solidifying its position with higher education around the time of the Oxford Conferences (1958), Brown (2012) suggests institutional attitudes changed, and live projects were viewed by the visiting accreditation board as too “simple” and lacking in “depth”, especially those related to a built output. There was a perception that live projects lacked intellectual rigour, a symbol of its vocational past. Notably, this view is still somewhat pervasive today (Canizaro, 2012; Middlebrook and Maines, 2016). Other factors may also have contributed to the absence of participation. Portschy (2017) suggests that the more conservative governments of the 1980s promoted private sector intervention rather than local community movements prevalent in the 60 and 70s. This led to a sharp decline in community design centres and, therefore, live projects. Furthermore, the “Publish or Perish” paradigm of modern higher education institutions has encouraged the rapid growth in the number of published articles (Moosa and Edward Elgar, 2018; Lee, 2014). Moreover, the pressure to publish is most pressing for those who are non-tenured or new to academia (Moosa and Edward Elgar, 2018) and may, in fact, be the people with the greatest practice experience and, therefore, effective live project teachers. 3.2 Methods Qualitative case study research featured strongly in the reviewed literature (92%). Research conducted using multiple case studies totalled 28%. Other methods were used in conjunction with the case study research, such as literature reviews (8%) or survey questionnaires (8%). The only more extensive quantitative research was presented by Symeonidou (2017), examining the construction typology of 120 design-build education pavilions. 3.3 Geographic distribution The geographic distribution of the reviewed literature skews heavily to North America, with over 55% of publications originating from the USA or Canada. This correlates with several papers that describe a rich and complex history of design-build education in this region (Foote, 2012; Grichting and Sturgeon, 2015; Middlebrook and Maines, 2016; Salama, 2015a; Mohareb and Maassarani, 2018; Nicholas and Oak, 2020; Riether, 2017; Tural, 2017; Gaber, 2014; Corroto, 2014; Harrison, 1998; Theodoropoulos, 2014; Livingston and Nelson, 2014). The UK was also a notable research area for live projects, representing 11% of the publications in this study. Recent literature demonstrates a history and renewed interest in the live project model (Harriss and Widder, 2014; Harriss and Froud, 2015; Salama, 2015a; Anderson, 2017; Brown, 2016), especially in the context of contemporary challenges such as the climate crisis (Farmer, 2013, 2017) university-community collaborations (Love, 2018; Salama, 2015a) and pedagogy (Harriss and Froud, 2015), Publications from Australia (3%) were relatively low yet hint at a deeper tradition not represented in the metadata. Kotlarewski et al. (2019) and Salama (2015b) describe over 100 live projects conducted at the School of Architecture and Design in Tasmania. Similarly, Neuman (2018) describes a 15-year collaborative live project studio at the University of New South Wales. Beyond a small number of case study publications, the extent, history, or contextual characteristics of live projects in Australia are not well understood and warrant further research. The geographic distributions of research, whilst centred in a western tradition (North America, Europe and Australia represent 78% of the publications), also demonstrate the ubiquity of the live project model throughout much of the world. There are examples of live projects in China (Jiao and Tang, 2019), Columbia (Rodriguez, 2018), India (Saxena et al., 2017), Lebanon (Mohareb and Maassarani, 2018), Cyprus (Latif Rauf and Shareef, 2019) and beyond. 4. Decoding the live project As evidenced by Anderson (2017) and the methodological analysis of this review, live project research is dominated by case study analysis. Therefore, it may lack a “critique or critical awareness of a wider context” (Anderson, 2017, p. 2). To understand some of this “wider context”, a process of identification and categorisation of emerging themes was undertaken. The themes discussed include live project output, rationale, definitions and barriers. 4.1 Live project definitions Of the publications used in this study, 74% either defined (40%), partly defined (13%) or assumed (21%) a definition for live projects. This results from several factors, including the relative emergence/resurgence of the topic and the multi-layered motivations presented by the authors. Many authors felt the need to clarify the parameters of their projects by providing a situational definition and subsequently evaluating their case studies. This is noteworthy and demonstrates that there is no universally used definition of a live project. Following thematic analysis of the definitions from texts that fully defined a live project (43), four common themes emerged: (1) Pedagogical imperative (79%), where the need to improve, change or diversify a student’s learning experience was expressed, commonly judged against the existing studio model. (2) Community (55%), where fulfilling the community’s needs or other social needs were stated. (3) Construction (52%), where skills and learning outcome related to the construction of a product were stated. (4) Professional practice(33%), where skills were gained from experiences that closely resembled professional practice was expressed. These results demonstrate the complexity of defining live projects by rationale, method or output, as most definitions contained multiple themes (77%). Besides the understandable pedagogical imperative (79%), live projects are primarily defined by community engagement (56%) and the learning of construction-related skills (51%). However, there was also significant overlap in live project categorisation. For example, of the 33 papers that used either community or construction in their definitions, 37% used both. Furthermore, the term “designbuild” was not always used in relation to construction or a built output (examples include Nelson et al. (2010)), just as the term “community-design” often involved a built output. Definitions that featured descriptions of learning relating to professional practice were also found in 33% of the publications, yet never featured as the only defining factor. One could therefore assume skills related to professional practice were viewed as additional to the primary focus of community and construction issues. Similarly, only 8% of definitions include pedagogy as the only feature. Accordingly, construction skills and community engagement can be seen as the means by which skills in professional practice are acquired. 4.2 Type of live project by output By assessing and categorising the live project by output, data was gathered to illustrate the types of live projects being conducted. Although ascertaining and categorising “output” of live projects was challenging, due to the layered and contextual nature of live projects, three categories emerged from the literature; (1) Built output (66%), where construction of some sort was undertaken. Examples ranged from complete buildings to pavilions to birdhouses. Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH (2) Propositional/analytical design(15%), where the project’s output involved a proposal, such as a concept design, design brief or field research. (3) Full scope design(12%), where the project’s output was both proposed and built. (4) No specified (7%) (5) It is important to note that not all the documents gathered discussed a project output. Furthermore, where more than one output was discussed, all attempts were made to categorise multiple incidences. The results indicate that 78% of live projects in this review produced a built output (built output 66%, Full scope 12%). This could be due to the combination of geographical bias of the documents obtained (55% from North America) and the North American tradition of “designbuild” studio; however, when statistically comparing the output with geographic region, no correlation was found (USA – 81% built output (including “full scope” projects), the rest of the world – 78%). Therefore, it is likely live projects with a built output component are ubiquitous, regardless of geographic context. This coincides with the quantitative analysis conducted by Anderson (2017) on live projects submitted to the “Live Project Network”. This study’s temporary, semi-permanent and permanent built projects represented 78% of total projects. Propositional/analytical projects totalled 22%. A “Digital-design-build” typology is a noteworthy built-output trend found in the literature reviewed (Riether, 2017; Riether and Jolly, 2011; Clayton et al., 2002; Karzel and Matcha, 2009; Dubor et al., 2019; Baerlecken and Duncan, 2012; Baerlecken et al., 2013). It is often discussed in the context of connecting new digital technologies with the fabrication or building process, giving students insight into complex design methods (such as parametric-based design). In this regard, an often-sighted issue with more traditional built-output live projects was the construction skill of participating students (Farmer, 2013, 2017; Fowles, 1984; Trubiano et al., 2019; Corroto, 2014; Grichting and Sturgeon, 2015; Dubor et al., 2019). Instead, digital design studios advocate for a deeper understanding of the emerging digital fabrication technology and process (such as Computerised Numerical Control (CNC), plasma cutting, thermoforming and 3D printing). In this way, students can appreciate modern workflow practices from design, material choice, fabrication and assembly without the traditional limitation of building skills. Furthermore, the design and fabrication of the digital design-build studios identified in this study were exclusively situated on the university’s campus, regardless of the client or type of built output (Riether, 2017; Riether and Jolly, 2011; Clayton et al., 2002; Karzel and Matcha, 2009). As Riether notes, “Architecture schools have over the past 20 years been the primer incubators in the speculation of architecture that is informed by digital design and fabrication tools” (Riether, 2011, p. 198). By operating in a university setting, digital design studios utilise the stability, technology and expertise available. Furthermore, inter-university cross-disciplinary collaboration fosters teamwork and interdisciplinary understanding (Bokowski and Matcha, 2012). There was, however, limited client or community involvement as the project’s focus was primarily technical. 4.3 Project rationale The reviewed literature often expressed the rationale for undertaking a live project. These rationales were complex, often consisting of multiple motives. Nevertheless, five project rationale types emerged from the literature: (1) Pedagogical (38%), including student engagement, interdisciplinary exploration and student preparedness for professional practice. It is acknowledged that, in a sense, all live projects in this study relate to a pedagogical motivation as it was part of the SQLR selection criteria. However, pedagogical is used here to describe where there was an explicit expression of a live project in the context of student learning as a primary motivation for the project. (2) Community(29%), including issues related to social justice, welfare and humanitarian aid; (3) Construction (24%), including investigation of methods, materials and construction delivery methods; (4) Sustainability(2%), including material and practice methods; (5) Technology(7%), including computer-aided design technology, construction techniques and technological trends. The results show that Pedagogy (38%), Community (29%) and Construction (24%) rank as the highest motivating factors for live projects. This result is unsurprising, given that the literature consistently points to these as drivers of the live project “movement” (Anderson and Priest, 2014; Anderson, 2017; Charlesworth et al., 2012; Harriss and Widder, 2014; Salama, 2015b; Brown, 2012, 2016; Canizaro, 2012). Furthermore, these motivational factors also frequently feature in live project definitions. Some illustrative examples are provided below. Live projects are work completed in the borderlands between architectural education and built environment practice; they include design/build work, community-based design, urban advocacy consulting and a host of other forms and models . . . (Harriss and Widder, 2014, cover) At the most basic level, live projects are those university-based studio design projects that involve both a real client and liaising with communities outside the university. Beyond this fundamental distinction lies a range of other significant and complex points of difference. Live projects often engage with educational, practical, professional, ethical and sociological issues . . . (Charlesworth et al., 2012, p. 2) This movement is based on the belief that education must centre on resolving society’s most clamouring problems while at the same time encouraging the engagement of future professionals to prepare them for a lifelong commitment to civic involvement. (Salama, 2015b, p. 217) The results also illustrate the overlapping and multi-motive nature of live projects. While, in most instances, a pedagogical/community/construction imperative may underscore the primary motive, an additional meaning was often included. Factors such as teacher expertise, situational context (local social/political/economic conditions or local materials) or developing technological trends added to the contingent nature of live project motives. 4.4 Live project obstacles and barriers Of the reviewed literature, 75% cited various obstacles and barriers when implementing and running a live project. For the purpose of discussion, these have been categorised by broad themes; (1) Administrative, including time constraints, safety, liability, risk management, cost and funding, tools and facilities and other logistical considerations. (2) Human barriers, including staff and student expertise and the shifting dynamic of traditional roles. (3) Client/community issues such as physical distance, communication and the navigation of an existing web of social and political challenges. 4.4.1 Administrative and logistical barriers. Of the selected publications, 56% mentioned administrative or logistical barriers. Of most common concern was the time it took to undertake a Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH live project, both in terms of fitting it into an existing academic calendar and long-term collaboration (Tural, 2017; Theodoropoulos, 2014; Gaber, 2014; Zingoni, 2018; Chamel, 2016; Kansler and Doerfler, 2019; Kim, 2006; Amer, 2015; Karzel and Matcha, 2009; Warren, 2014; Mohareb and Maassarani, 2018; Salama, 2015b; Neuman, 2018; Ghandi, 2018; Cranz, 2018; Clayton et al., 2002; Charlesworth, 2018; Abdel-Kader and Ettouney, 2017; Harrison, 1998; Trevino Sherk and Cobreros Rodriguez, 2019; Pinel and Urie, 2017; Passarelli and Mouton, 2021; Johnson, 2018; May et al., 2019; Sayed Saleh et al., 2021; Foote, 2012; Busby and Harrison, 2018). These are significant barriers to the institutionalisation of live projects into higher education. Further research on these issues, especially concerning adaptive solutions, could be of considerable value to the live project field. There were, however, some creative solutions presented, including iterative live projects, where successive “courses” built on gains made by the previous group, yet within the context of a single project (Johnson, 2018); or a simultaneous, multidisciplinary effort, where different groups tackled different aspects of the project at the same time (May et al., 2019). Other common administrative challenges include the management of risk relating to doing activities outside the normal studio environment. These typically include extensive risk management assessment (particularly for programmes relating to construction), liability, insurance, medical issues and other similar considerations (Tural, 2017; Gaber, 2014; Middlebrook and Maines, 2016; Corroto, 2014; Fowles, 1984; Clayton et al., 2002; Schwartz et al., 2014; Hughes, 2014). These can place a substantial administrative burden on the educator, especially in the risk-averse higher education environment (Canizaro, 2012; Harriss and Froud, 2015). Furthermore, liability for the project’s output (be that built or propositional) is a significant issue for higher education institutions whose raison d’etre is education, not necessarily commercial production (Schwartz et al., 2014; Corroto, 2014). Finally, cost issues, including difficulty obtaining and maintaining funding together with the resource-intensive nature of live projects, were a barrier cited by 16% of papers (May et al., 2019; Sara and Jones, 2018; Amer, 2015; Black and Doorn, 2015; Clayton et al., 2002; Akerman, 2017; Ascher-Barnstone, 2002; Cranz, 2018; Fisher and Lofthouse, 2014; Middlebrook and Maines, 2016; Schwartz et al., 2014; Tural, 2017; Warren, 2014; Malmqvist et al., 2004). Once more, this is a significant challenge in an environment of tightening higher education spending and intensive commercialisation and competition. However, as Black and Doorn (2015) demonstrate, there is also scope for live projects to embrace these fiscal challenges as opportunities for learning and sustainable reclamation. 4.4.2 Human barriers. Of the reviewed literature, 31% cited issues relating to personnel and relational dynamics, including reliance on engaged students, dedicated pedagogues, strong leadership, effective communication and a wide variety of expertise. With a higher percentage of built output live projects, student’s construction skills and experience were cited as a barrier to successful projects (Farmer, 2013, 2017; Fowles, 1984; Trubiano et al., 2019; Corroto, 2014; Grichting and Sturgeon, 2015; Dubor et al., 2019). In many instances, this issue was embraced as a learning opportunity and became part of the project’s DNA. Examples include construction training becoming part of the course offering (Farmer, 2013) and students learning construction techniques from community groups (Corroto, 2014). Other times, the barrier was considered in the design and material choices to enable “simple, participatory forms of construction” (Farmer, 2017, p. 11). There is also a noticeable change in the role and responsibility of educators. Several papers noted that the teacher-intensive nature of live projects burdened educators with considerable responsibilities (Love, 2018; Malmqvist et al., 2004; Schwartz et al., 2014). Teaching within the pedagogy of design/build, particularly when attempting community and/or civic engagement, requires considerable skill and fluency with aspects of interpersonal communication, cultural awareness and sensitivity, reflective learning and collaborative teaching. (Schwartz et al., 2014, p. 89) Schwartz et al. (2014) and Maya et al. (2017) also noted that the relationship between the teacher and students was not the same as that between employer and employee, making some of the professional practice aspirations of the live project challenging to navigate. Furthermore, the issue of leadership, especially balancing roles as educator, researcher, institutional employee/representative, architectural professional and project leader, is a facet of live projects that could greatly benefit from further research. 4.4.3 Client/community. Several papers discussed issues relating to client and community engagement (Charlesworth, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2014; Yoachim et al., 2020; Corser and Gore, 2009; Salama, 2015b). In leaving the university setting, live projects intentionally relinquish control for the complexity and unpredictability of real-world operations. Consequently, several issues related to live projects were presented, particularly in the context of clients and community relations. Of concern to both Charleworth (2018) and Salama (2015b) was the management of student and community expectations. As the initial excitement fades and other barriers erode the project’s original goals, both the client and the student can be left with a sense of disappointment. Although not frequently noted in the reviewed literature, Yoachim et al. illuded to an issue they called the “Stakeholder-by-proxy default” (2020, p. 116). This refers to a situation in which the project’s involvement with one community group may not represent the wishes of the whole of the community. Instead, the primary partner interprets the needs of the wider community for you. This is fraught with social, political and operational issues for those conducting the live project and requires deft leadership to navigate. Yoachim et al. conclude their discussion by stating, “Our work is focussed on pushing beyond the core staff of a project partner to include a wider range of stakeholders and even sceptics who will be the users, advocates and maintainers of a project” (2020, p. 116). It would be of value to explore the extent to which community-based live projects “push beyond” the primary partner and the ways in which this is handled. 5. Research findings/discussion 5.1 Interdisciplinary focus The interdisciplinary focus of a number of the papers was a noteworthy finding from the study (Maya et al., 2017; May et al., 2019; Black and Doorn, 2015; Bokowski and Matcha, 2012; Nelson et al., 2010; Quale, 2008; Goff et al., 2005; Goff et al., 2006; Carl and Stepper, 2016; Cicek  ek, 2019; Delportet al., 2019; Neuman, 2018; Sutton and Kemp, 2006; Hlavacek and Cen Voulgarelis and Perold, 2016a, b; Yong and Wei, 2019). The motive was typically framed as a requirement of modern practice and, therefore, something universities should aspire to teach. Today’s students are faced with far different challenges upon graduation than those encountered in past years. One of the most significant of these challenges is the need to work within the framework of integrated project delivery, where all disciplines work as a cohesive team to produce a project. (Nelson et al., 2010, p. 2). This aligns with other scholarship on interdisciplinary collaboration in spatial design (Bryant, 2021; Spence et al., 2001; Scholz and Steiner, 2015). Much like the proponents of interdisciplinary live projects, Bryant identifies the “diminishing traditional domain of spatial design” and “the proliferation of information and access” (Bryant, 2021, p. 1) as justification for a pedagogy to look outside of its own borders for collaboration. Carl and Stepper (2016) note an example of a modern project with over 40 specialist professionals, all coordinated by the architect. “The complex nature of architecture often requires planning teams with specialists from multiple disciplines. Architecture education, however, addresses this interdisciplinary modus operandi rarely” (Carl and Stepper, 2016, p. 591). The makeup of these interdisciplinary teams was also interesting to note. For example, more traditional projects tended to use an engineering-architecture student collaboration Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH (Nelson et al., 2010; Quale, 2008; Cicek et al., 2019), with outputs that were either built or a complete set of construction drawings. Others paired architecture and industrial design students (Goff et al., 2004; Maya et al., 2017) with product outputs. Other collaborations included technical disciplines (such as electrical engineering) in producing more technical outputs such as solar facades or energy-efficient tiny houses (May et al., 2019; Black and Doorn, 2015; Carl and Stepper, 2016). The papers also tended to be the most recent of the projects described. There is a clear overlap between the interdisciplinary focus and motivation for student exposure to the realities of professional practice. Given the trend towards increased specialisation within the architecture profession (Maroya et al., 2019) and the expressed interest in using live projects to engender professional learning, further research into this relationship may prove beneficial. 5.2 Institutional “design centres” Notably, the literature also indicated the significant use of quasi-autonomous institutional design centres in delivering live projects (Sara and Jones, 2018; Corroto, 2014; Akerman, 2017; Dubor et al., 2019; Foote, 2012; Iwamoto and Scott, 2001; Trevino Sherk and Cobreros Rodriguez, 2019; Yoachim et al., 2020; Salama, 2015b; Sturgeon, 2010; Wilkins, 2016; Forster et al., 2008). Also referred to as project offices, design “clinics”, community design centres, design cells and labs, these bodies, whilst housed in the higher education institution, tended to sit outside traditional departmental, school or design course boundaries. Corroto notes that over half the accredited architecture programmes in the USA have instituted a Community Design Center (Corroto, 2014). Some run multiple projects through the same entity, providing a public face for community engagement. Examples include “Hands-on Bristol” (Sara and Jones, 2018), the “Washington–Alexandria Architecture Center (Foote, 2012), the “Albert and Tina Small Center for Collaborative Design” (Yoachim et al., 2020) “The Community Development Group” (Salama, 2015b) and “Research Design Unit” at the Welsh School of Architecture (Forster et al., 2008). Others are set up to run just one specific course or establish an entity within the university as a home for transdisciplinary projects (Dubor et al., 2019; Akerman, 2017; Passarelli and Mouton, 2021; Trevino Sherk and Cobreros Rodriguez, 2019). Like many other aspects of live projects, the application, implementation, structure and boundaries of these design centres are hard to define, nor does the literature provide much detail on their establishment or governance. Future research on how these design centres operate would greatly benefit the broader live project typology. Questions remain regarding their place within existing institutional operational structures; how community groups and the public interact with these entities; furthermore, do these design centres mitigate some of the institutional barriers to implementing a live project? And finally, how have these institutions changed over time, especially in relation to incorporating academic research? 5.3 Critical voices The nature of case study literature lends itself to verification bias (Starman, 2013). Live projects are at even greater risk of hidden biases in reporting success over failure due to the close relationship of the teacher and the projects (Anderson, 2017; Charlesworth et al., 2012). However, the reviewed literature presented some notable examples Arboleda (2020) questioned problems of power in community design, stating, “The mere application of participation does not ensure an equal relationship between practitioners and users.” (Arboleda, 2020, p. 15) The main issue with participation lies in its codesign premise. Under the pretence of “designing with,” it is very easy for designers to continue to impose their own agendas because codesign process usually enables the designer to retain decision-making power (Arboleda, 2020, p. 17). Corroto offers a similar critical reflection noting “there are conflicting intentions and aspirations at work through service learning in architecture and its implementation calls into question who or what is served” (Corroto, 2014). Charlesworth (2018, p. 256) refer to this phenomenon as “design tourism”, suggesting that live projects, especially those with community aspirations, end up working “for rather than with community groups” (Sara and Jones, 2018, p. 330). Similarly, Rodriguez (2018) acknowledges the difficulty in gauging how much the community should be involved in the decision-making process without the educators losing control of the project’s direction. The literature showed, in places, that deeper critical reflection on the power dynamic between education facilitation and community is needed. In this regard, very little post-occupancy-evaluation (POE) is presented in the literature, with the notable exception of Verderber’s (2021) comprehensive POE of four live project pavilions in North America. More studies of this type may help in the more critical analysis of live projects and their long-term impacts on the communities they aim to serve. It is encouraging to note these critical voices come from more recent scholarship and show signs of a maturing typology. 6. Conclusion The breadth of reviewed literature allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of live project scholarship than the typical case study analysis. This approach enabled common trends to be identified, including the predominance of live projects scholarship from the Global North and the rise in publications since the early 2000s. Furthermore, using the body of scholarship as a basis for qualitative analysis, themes emerged from the literature, including project definitions, rationales and barriers. These themes demonstrated that live project definitions are typically characterised by pedagogical, community and construction rationales, emphasising the link between project motivation and definition. However, they were not mutually exclusive. Many scholars chose to frame their live project using multiple concepts. References to live project barriers were also found in 75% of the identified literature. These tended to emphasise administrative issues such as curriculum timing, human barriers and issues related to community and client relations, including expectation management. Other emerging themes included the interdisciplinary nature of many live projects and the prevalence of institutional design centres, or “labs”. These themes demonstrated that the pervasiveness of interdisciplinary live projects was consistent with the goals of emulating the conditions found in professional practice. Finally, critical voices were examined, elucidating the need for awareness and reflection on the balance of power between the designer and the community they aim to serve. This further raises the fundamental question of who is served when mixing pedagogical and community aspirations. However, significant questions remain unanswered. One of the most important issues is the disparity between live project publication and actual practice. A brief examination of three websites dedicated to live project recording and networking (the Live Project Network, the Design Build Xchange and the Social Economic Environmental Design Network) demonstrate that live projects are far more prevalent than the literature suggests. This could be due to several factors, including the English-speaking bias of scholarly publications or the difficulty in publishing in poorly funded areas. Either way, this still means much of the work being done globally remains unexplored. Further study could start to discern regional variations in project history, context and delivery. Constructive comparisons between affluent and poorer regions, or countries with more extended live project history or different higher education systems, could start to add richness to live project scholarship beyond the western perspective presented here. Questions also remain about where live projects sit within architecture’s commercial world. In undertaking projects that involve a real client, in the real world, live projects cross (or at least straddle) an important line between education and professional practice, yet the Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH “professional” voice was almost entirely absent from the reviewed literature. This is even more of an issue when considering 33% of live project definitions mentioned learning outcomes linked to professional practice. More could be done to examine the views of commercial practitioners, notwithstanding some live project scholars may also be practitioners. Questions like Do live projects represent commercial competition to practising architects and Are live projects effective in teaching students the realities of the commercial world seem like a suitable place to start. If live projects sit somewhere outside of the traditional commercial world, serving the needs of clients and communities that could not otherwise afford professional services, is there a role for the profession in supporting the efforts of educational institutions? Finally, the question of how live projects deal with academic and professional accreditation still remains largely unresolved. Whilst noting Theodoropoulos’ (2014) work on the live projects in the USA and the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), there still remains limited critical scholarship on where live projects sit in relation to architectural education institutions and their deference to professional accreditation boards. Are most live projects run as part of the core curriculum or remain on the fringes, run as an elective or in associated design centres? What are the differences in approach? Does full institutionalisation limit the scope and possibilities of live projects? Further research in this area may give future live project practitioners essential insights into the best way to frame their next project. References Abdel-Kader, N. and Ettouney, S. (2017), “Communities in transformation sustaining community design”, International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, Vol. 41, pp. 101-112. AIA Research Agenda (2019), AIA architectural research agenda (2019-2020), The American Institue of Architects. Akerman, J. (2017), “Crafting production: design-build as alternative practice”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 71, pp. 73-81. Amer, N.A. (2015), “Appropriate technology and design-build program in architectural education”, Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Vol. 62, pp. 507-528. Anderson, J. and Priest, C. (2014), “Developing an inclusive definition, typological analysis and online resource for Live Projects”, Architecture Live Projects, Routledge, London. Anderson, J. (2017), “Devising an inclusive and flexible taxonomy of international live projects”, ARENA Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 2 No. 1. Arboleda, G. (2020), “Beyond participation: rethinking social design”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 74, pp. 15-25. Ascher-Barnstone, D. (2002), “Building designs for living: studio 804, university of Kansas”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 55, pp. 186-193. Baerlecken, D. and Duncan, D. (2012), “JUNK design build studio”, (CAADRIA 2012): Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia: Beyond Codes and Pixels, pp. 305-315. Baerlecken, D., Reitz, J. and Duncan, D. (2013), “Junk Reuse of waste materials”, ECAADE 2012: Physical Digitality, Vol. 2. Black, K. and Doorn, T. (2015), “Student-driven design in architecture: interacting with reclaimed materials and passive solar techniques”, 44th ASES National Solar Conference, SOLAR 2015 Expanding Horizons: Shaping the New Energy Economy, pp. 21-28. Bokowski, J. and Matcha, H. (2012), “Mobius strip segmented into flat trapezoids: design-build project by the departments of architecture and mathematics of the technische universitat darmstadt”, Nexus Network Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 109-118. Brown, J.B. (2012), A Critique of the Live Project, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast. Brown, J.B. (2016), From modern construction to postmodern social constructivism: defining the live project in architectural education. Bryant, M. (2021), “Learning spatial design through interdisciplinary collaboration”, Land, Vol. 10, p. 689. Busby, K. and Harrison, J. (2018), “Universal design in architectural education – community liaison on ‘Live projects”, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, pp. 205-213. Canizaro, V.B. (2012), “Design-build in architectural education: motivations, practices, challenges, successes and failures”, ArchNet-IJAR : International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 6, pp. 20-36. Carl, T. and Stepper, F. (2016), “Free Skin" Collaboration Negotiating complex design criteria across different scales with an interdisciplinary student team”, ECAADE 2016: Complexity and Simplicity, Vol. 1, pp. 591-600. Chamel, O. (2016), “Design/build: a relevant pedagogy for architecture education”, VitruvioInternational Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability, Vol. 1, pp. 53-65. Charlesworth, E., Dodd, M. and Harrisson, F. (2012), Live Projects: Designing with People, RMIT Publishing, Melbourne. Charlesworth, E. (2018), “Walking the Talk: from theory to practice in delivering community based design education”, International Journal of Art and Design Education, Vol. 37, pp. 253-264. Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, Sage, London. Cicek, J.S., Friesen, M., Bailey, S. and Ieee (2019), “Transdisciplinary design build studio course in collaboration with shoal lake 40 first nation”, Development and Assessment. 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE 2019). Clayton, M.J., Warden, R.B. and Parker, T.W. (2002), “Virtual construction of architecture using 3D CAD and simulation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 11, pp. 227-235. Collins, E. (2014), Architects and Research-Based Knowledge: A Literature Review, RIBA, Londres. Corroto, C. (2014), “When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail : the architecture of service learning”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 103-118. Corser, R. and Gore, N. (2009), “Insurgent architecture: an alternative approach to design-build”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 62, pp. 32-39. Cranz, G. (2018), “Designing and building the visual pathway as public art: some pros and cons of design-build pedagogy for higher education”, Transforming Our World Through DEsign, Diversity and Education, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Declaration on Architectural Research (2011), “Declaration on architectural research [online]”, available at: http://reseaaerch.wikidot.com/declaration-on-architectural-researchhttp:// reseaaerch.wikidot.com/declaration-on-architectural-research (accessed 12 February 2022 2022). Delport-Voulgarelis, H.E. and Perold, R. (2016a), “Exploring collaboration in architectural education: towards design-build projects”, Architecture South Africa, No. 77, pp. 42-47. Delport-Voulgarelis, H.E. and Perold, R. (2016b), “Part 2: Exploring collaboration in architectural education: towards design-build projects”, Architecture South Africa, No. 78, pp. 34-44. Dubor, A., Marengo, M. and Ros-Fernandez, P. (2019), “Experimentation, prototyping and digital technologies towards 1:1 in architectural education”, VII Jornadas Sobre Innovacion Docente en Arquitecura, (JIDA’19). Farmer, G. (2013), “Re-contextualising design: three ways of practising sustainable architecture”, Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 106-119. Farmer, G. (2017), “From differentiation to concretisation: integrative experiments in sustainable architecture”, Societies, Vol. 7 No. 4. Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH Fisher, C. and Lofthouse, N. (2014), “Building process the Oxford academy live project”, in Harriss, H. and Widder, L. (Eds), Architecture Live Projects. Foote, J. (2012), “Design-build:: build-design”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 65, pp. 52-58, 1984. Forster, W.P., Coombs, S. and Thomas, R. (2008), The architect and the academy: research through design at the Welsh School of Architecture, Oxford Conferences: A Re-evaluation of Education in Architecture. Fowles, B. (1984), “Design-build projects in architectural education”, Design Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 7-14. Gaber, T. (2014), “The agency of making and architecture education: design-build curriculum in a new school of architecture”, Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 8, pp. 21-31. Ghandi, M. (2018), “Designing affordable, portable, and flexible shelter for the homeless and the refugees”, ECAADE 2018: Computing For a Better Tomorrow, Vol. 1. Goff, R.M., Vernon, M.R., Green, W.R. and Vorster, C.R., “Using design - build projects to promote interdisciplinary design”, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2004, S3C-27S3C-S32. Goff, R.M., Terpenny, J.P., Vernon, M.R., Green, W.R. and Vorster, C.R., “Work in progress interdisciplinary design of assistive technology for the third world”, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2005, F2H-7-F2H-8. Goff, R.M., Terpenny, J.P., Vernon, M.R. and Green, W.R., “Evolution of student perception in a human centered interdisciplinary design project”, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2006, pp. 7-12. Grichting, A. and Sturgeon, K. (2015), “Urban design build: the frederick douglass peace park coummunity-based learning through making”, Open House International, Vol. 40, pp. 5-10. Harrison, S. (1998), “Between tower and street”, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 3, pp. 5-38. Harriss, H. and Froud, D. (2015), Radical Pedagogies: Architectural Education and the British Tradition, RIBA Publications. Harriss, H. and Widder, L. (2014), Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice, Routledge, London. Harriss, H. (2018), “A comparative history of live projects within the United States and the UK: key characteristics and contemporary implications”, The Routledge Companion to Architecture and Social Engagement, Routledge, London.  ek, M. (2019), “Hands-on: sustainable approach in architectural education”, IOP Hlavacek, D. and Cen Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Hughes, M. (2014), “Constructing a contingent pedagogy”, in Harriss, H. and Widder, L. (Eds), Architecture Live Projects. Iwamoto, L. and Scott, C. (2001), “Surface/thickness translated: design-build as vehicle (project for the renovation of the faculty resource room at taubman college of architecture and urban planning)”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 54, pp. 185-190. Jiao, J. and Tang, P. (2019), “Application of bamboo in a design–build course: lianhuadang Farm project”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol. 8, pp. 549-563. Johnson, R.D. (2018), “Homelessness: a critical approach to architecture and planning”, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 217, pp. 675-686. Kansler, J. and Doerfler, J. (2019), “MERGE: exploring new paradigms for educating architects engineers and builders”, Structures and Architecture: Bridging the Gap and Crossing Borders, CRC Press, Florida. Karzel, R. and Matcha, H. (2009), “Experimental design-build teaching parameter-based design”, ECAADE 2009: Computation: The New Realm of Architectural Design. Kim, J. (2006), “Exploring social construction in architectural pedagogy”, Open House International, Vol. 31, pp. 51-59. Kotlarewski, N., Wallis, L., Lee, M., Nolan, G. and Last, M. (2019), “Collaborative design education with industry: student perspective by reflection”, Re:ResearchRe:ResearchTeaching and Learning Design: Re:Research, Vol. 1. Latif Rauf, H. and Shareef, S.S. (2019), “Understanding the relationship between construction courses and design in architectural education”, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, Vol. 8, pp. 3201-3207. Lee, I. (2014), “Publish or perish: the myth and reality of academic publishing”, Language Teaching, Vol. 47, pp. 250-261. Livingston, C. and Nelson, S. (2014), “‘The people’s interest?’: design/build live projects and public education”, in Harriss, H. and Widder, L. (Eds), Architecture Live Projects. Love, J.S. (2018), “Sensory spaces: sensory learning – an experimental approach to educating future designers to design autism schools”, International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNetIJAR, Vol. 12, pp. 152-169. Luck, R. (2019), “Design research, architectural research, architectural design research: an argument on disciplinarity and identity”, Design Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 152-166. Malmqvist, J., Young, P.W., Hallstrom, S., Kuttenkeuler, J. and Svensson, T. (2004), “Lessons learned from design-build-test-based project courses”, Design 2004: Proceedings of the 8th International Design Conference, pp. 1-3. Maroya, A., Matthewson, G. and Wallis, L. (2019), “Architectural education and the profession in Australia and New Zealand”, Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA), Sydney. May, V.V., Sullivan, C.R., Passow, H.J. and Cushman-Roisin, B. (2019), “Designing and building a tiny house to develop connections across disciplines and concepts cooperative and experiential learning work-in-progress”, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Maya, M., Garcia, M., Britton, E. and Acuna, A. (2017), “Play lab: creating social value through competency and challenge-based learning”, Building Community: Design Education For a Sustainable Future, The Design Society Institution of Engineering Designers. Middlebrook, J. and Maines, K. (2016), “The introductory architecture studio revisited: exploring the educational potential of design-build within a liberal arts context”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 70, pp. 154-164. Mohareb, N. and Maassarani, S. (2018), “Design-build: an effective approach for architecture studio education”, Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 12, pp. 146-161. Moosa, I.A. and Edward Elgar, P. (2018), Publish or Perish: Perceived Benefits versus Unintended Consequences, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Nelson, J., Nuttall, B. and Estes, A. (2010), “Interdisciplinary design: the good, the bad, and the ugly”, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Neuman, M. (2018), “The collaborative interdisciplinary studio”, in Frank, A.I. and Silver, C. (Eds), Urban PLanning Education: Beginnings, Global Movement and Future Prospects, Springer, Cham. Nicholas, C. and Oak, A. (2020), “Make and break details: the architecture of design-build education”, Design Studies, Vol. 66, pp. 35-53. Passarelli, R.N. and Mouton, B.J. (2021), “The URBANbuild program: bridging design, construction, and research”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 75, pp. 102-107. Pickering, C. and Byrne, J. (2014), “The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 33, pp. 534-548. Pinel, S.L. and Urie, R. (2017), “Learning reflective planning: the application of participatory action research principles to planning studio design and assessment”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 34, pp. 32-48. Live project exploration of scholarship ARCH Portschy, S. (2017), “Community-driven design aspects of architecture education in Hungary”, Architectural Research Addressing Societal Challenges, Vol. 1 No. 2. Quale, J.D. (2008), “Hands-on learning: the ecoMOD project”, Eco-Architecure II: Harmonisation Between Architecture and Nature, WIT Press, Southampton. Riether, G. and Jolly, K. (2011), “Flexible systems flexible design, material and fabrication: the AIA pavilion as a case study”, ECAADE 2011: Respecting Fragile Places. Riether, G. (2011), “The digital design build studio”, in Lou, Y. (Ed.), Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering: 8th International Conference, CDVE 2011, 11-14, 2011, Proceedings, Hong Kong: Springer. Riether, G. (2017), “The digital design build studio”, ECAADE 2017: Sharing of Computable Knowledge! (Shock!), Vol. 1. Rodriguez, C.M. (2018), “A method for experiential learning and significant learning in architectural education via live projects”, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 279-304. Salama, A. (2015a), Spatial Design Education: New Directions for Pedagogy in Architecture and beyond, Routledge, London. Salama, A.M. (2015b), “Interchangeable design pedagogies: community design, design-build, and live project studios”, in Salama, A. (Ed.), Spatial Design Education. Sara, R. and Jones, M. (2018), “The university as agent of change in the city: co-creation of live community architecture”, ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 12, pp. 326-337. Saxena, S., Arora, S. and Shrivastava, A. (2017), “Gaps between practice and education of architect-A study of India”, in Kantola, J.I., Barath, T., Nazir, S. and Andre, T. (Eds), Advances in Human Factors, Business Management, Training and Education, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer International Publishing, Vol. 498. Sayed Saleh, I.S., Ahmed Ismail, M.R., Faggal, A.a. E. and Al-Shareef, A.a. M. (2021), “Design-build approaches with building’s users in local school case study in Cairo, Egypt”, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 9, pp. 828-835. Scholz, R.W. and Steiner, G. (2015), “The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 10, pp. 527-544. Schwartz, C., Morthland, L. and Mcdonald, S. (2014), “Building a social framework: utilising design/ build to provide social learning experiences for architecture students”, Architectural Theory Review, Vol. 19, pp. 76-91. Spence, R.J., Macmillan, S. and Kirby, P. (2001), Interdisciplinary Design in Practice, Thomas Telford, London. Starman, A.B. (2013), “The case study as a type of qualitative research”, Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies/Sodobna Pedagogika, Vol. 64 No. 1. Sturgeon, K.A. (2010), “DesignBUILD studio: a case study in forming collaborative service-learning initiatives”, Quick Hits for Service-Learning: Successful Strategies by Award-Winning Teachers. Sutton, S.E. and Kemp, S.P. (2006), “Integrating social science and design inquiry through interdisciplinary design charrettes: an approach to participatory community problem solving”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 125-139. Symeonidou, I. (2017), “Reinventing Design-Build projects with the use of digital media for design and construction A survey of 120 educational pavilions”, ECAADE 2017: Sharing of Computable Knowledge! (Shock!), Vol. 1. Theodoropoulos, C. (2014), “The NAAB live project paradigm”, in Harriss, H. and Widder, L. (Eds), Architecture Live Projects. Trevino Sherk, J. and Cobreros Rodriguez, C. (2019), “Rural democratic design: participatory design and service learning strategies in sustainable development to promote civic mindedness in community development”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Towards a New Innovation Landscape, E and PDE 2019. Trubiano, F., Dessi-Olive, J. and Gentry, R. (2019), “Masonry tectonics: craft, labor, and structural innovation in architectural education”, in Structures and Architecture: Bridging the Gap and Crossing Boarders. Tural, E. (2017), “Organizational transformations in community design centers: an analysis through giddens’ theory of structuration framework”, Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 25, pp. 253-282. Verderber, S. (2021), “Assessing the post-occupancy performance of educational design/build: the thinking while doing initiative”, Archnet-IJAR. Walker, D. and Myrick, F. (2006), “Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 16, pp. 547-559. Warren, S. (2014), The fareshare live project. Watt, K. and Cottrell, D. (2006), “Grounding the curriculum: learning from live projects in architectural education”, International Journal of Learning, Vol. 13, pp. 97-104. Widder, L. (2014), “What belongs to architecture: teaching construction among live projects”, in Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy Into Practice. Wilkins, C.L. (2016), “Once more unto the breach”, in Wilkins, C.L. (Ed.), Diversity among Architects, 1st ed., Routledge, London. Yoachim, A., Welty, E.T. and Jenisch, N. (2020), “Public interest design, pragmatism, and potentials in a postdiluvian city”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 74, pp. 110-118. Yong, J.I.a. N.G. and Wei, W. (2019), “Design-build interdisciplinary course at Tsinghua university”, Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, pp. 578-580. Zingoni, M. (2018), “Prototyping process: interior architecture as a social agency”, Interiors: Design, Architecture, Culture, Vol. 9, pp. 306-323. Corresponding author Sebastian G. Smith can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Live project exploration of scholarship