Search results

Despite the proven importance of co-design as a way of improving the social relevance of architecture, there is a lack of opportunity for meaningful co-design processes in the current professional Master of Architecture programme in South Africa as it is largely modelled on the professional work stages of the South African Council for the Architecture Profession (SACAP), which are based on the assumption of primary authorship and authority of the architect.

This problem has been investigated by way of ten workshops with high school learners in the Mamelodi East township in South Africa, as part of a professional master’s degree in architecture.

The findings of the workshops indicate that the initial stages of design could benefit directly from the participation processes and could be critiqued constructively. However, increased resistance to the process by crit panels was experienced once the sketch design phase was completed and the expectation of primary authorship increased. Engagement of the learners in the latter part of the design decision-making process also diminished as levels of experience in spatial design became evidently further removed from the expected outcomes.

In terms of co-design discourse and the evident value of participatory skills in practice, it is evident that the initial work stages of concept, brief and ideation are fairly easily assimilated into the pedagogical requirements of the degree programme and as such could enable a more socially relevant and responsive approach to professional practice.

The South African standard of practising architecture leaves little space for the process of co-design, even within the educational environment. The value of co-design within this context lies predominantly in the values and conversations generated rather than the aesthetics of the end product. The process of co-design opens up the opportunity for new dialogues to emerge and for relationships to form.

Co-design illustrates how architectural intelligence can be exercised in a much broader spatial field that acknowledges more than just the building itself but social, global, ecological and virtual networks, thereby changing how the authors design, what the authors design and who designs it.

It is in the realm of co-design that the beauty of architecture oscillates between strangeness and the ordinary. If the authors embrace the power of the collective and collaborative thinking, the authors are able to conceive new ways in the making of architecture. In order to arrive at this, however, the straightjacketed approach of modelling the master’s programme on professional work stages and outcomes needs to be challenged so that true transformation of the profession can be enabled through its pedagogical instruments.

The primary aim of this systematic review is to identify, describe and synthesise the published literature on the types and effects of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff. The secondary aim will be to describe the mechanisms and moderators of the effects of prehospital feedback in an organisational context.

The application and effects of feedback for healthcare professionals, to support improved practice, is well researched within the wider healthcare domain. Within a prehospital context, research into feedback has been developing in specific areas such as automated feedback from defibrillators and debrief after simulation. However, to date there has been no systematic review published on the types and effects of feedback available to emergency ambulance staff.

This study will be a systematic mixed studies review including empirical primary research of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods methodology published in peer-reviewed journals in English. Studies will be included if they explore the concept of feedback as defined in this review, i.e. the systematised provision of information to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance within prehospital practice and/or patient outcomes. The search strategy will consist of three facets: ambulance staff synonyms, feedback synonyms and feedback content. The databases to be searched from inception are MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and Web of Science. Study quality will be appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) developed by Hong et al. (2018). Data analysis will consist of narrative synthesis guided by Popay et al. (2006) following a parallel-results convergent synthesis design.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020162600)