Factors Influencing Conceptions of Information Quality in the Production and Utilization of Environment and Behavior Research.
Andrew D. Seidel · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · 1980
This report examines one of the questions underlying the use of environment and behavior research (EBR) by architects. It presumes that information will not be used by architects if it is not seen as having at least acceptable quality by the architect. It examines factors influencing differences in conceptions of information quality between architects and environment and behavior researchers. In-depth interviews were conducted with thirty-one "opinion leaders" in the use and production of this research to examine if what has been learned about the utilization of research products by decision makers in other fields is applicable to the considerations here. A snowball technique was used to identify those architects and EBR researchers who among architects and EBR researchers are considered to have been most successful in the production of EBR for use by architects, in the utilization of EBR in architectural practice, or both. Additionally, the criteria held by architects and environment and behavior researchers for evaluating information quality and the factors reinforcing these criteria from training, organizational incentives and professional reference groups were examined. The report concludes that architects and environment and behavior researchers hold nearly completely different criteria for evaluating information quality. While, as expected, the researchers look to elements of methodological rigor, contribution to the knowledge field and internal logical consistency, all elements which are internal to the information, architects appear to have a nearly wholly distinct set of criteria which are predominantly external to the information itself. Architects look to the reputation of the author among other architects and look to the author as a trustworthy individual as well as to the ability of the information to form a precedent. A precedent is information within an architectural decision-making context, related to a series of buildings of a particular type and , rather than to the manipulation of conceptual variables (such as privacy or territoriality), to the manipulation of architectural variables, of physical space. The influences of organizational incentives, training and primary reference groups militate to reinforce these differences. The researcher or architect who attempts to form a bridge between the two sets of criteria for information quality apparently puts him or herself at risk with the respective organizational environments. Interestingly, the "opinion leader" group does not show the same strong differences reinforcing the notion that success in this endeavor requires the individual to span disciplinary boundaries. Additional conclusions are recommendations for altering the incentive structure faced by architects and environment and behavior researchers to promote greater usefulness of the research product and use by the architect perhaps through the creation of new peer review mechanisms to promote greater bridging. One such mechanism, a journal, is displayed with explicit criteria for the authors and reviewers to ensure the development of materials that meet or properly trade between both sets of criteria. Also, given the apparent applicability of the organizational literature as applied here, the recommendation is made to look more closely at descriptive studies of the architectural profession rather than the normative approaches that are predominant.