DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES IN PERCEPTIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATIONS: EXPERT AND NON-EXPERT OBSERVERS.

Research to date has demonstrated the disparity between the perceptions of architects and those of members of the public regarding architectural representations (AR). In contrast, perceptual responses of the key participants in the design decision-making process are a significantly under-researched area. This paper explores the differences and similarities between the perceptions of final AR of architects, professionals in the built environment (BE), and politicians. It relies, in part, on the findings of a wider study that investigated the perceived credibility of AR. This evidence is used to gain insight into the nature of people ~ perceptual responses to AR. The analysis shows that architects' and BE professionals 'perceptions of AR are formed by their professional priorities. Architects possess pictorial competence, which is created through expertise and familiarity with the medium of AR. In contrast, BE professionals have much less expertise in visual perception, and their observations primarily focus on eliciting information that relates to their own professional priorities. Hence, the knowledge, professional expertise, and skills of these groups are complementary rather than identical. The evidence also shows a differentiation between these two groups and councillors acting as members of planning committees. Despite some similarities with BE professionals, councillors can be regarded as observers with an informed interest in AR rather than as experts. Taken together the findings suggest that a considered use of different forms of AR in the design decision-making process is needed as a way of improving communication among the parties involved in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Architectural & Planning Research is the property of Locke Science Publishing Company Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)