Anonymizing means that you edit and revise your material in all formats in such a way that research participants cannot be recognized and houses cannot be located. On the one hand, this is intended to protect the privacy of the participants and on the other hand to shift the focus from personal history to the urban types.
Appropriation is the act of taking possession of spaces and discourses. This does not refer to ownership in the sense of property, but rather to the skills and knowledge necessary to engage with these spaces and discourses, to navigate them with confidence, and to see oneself as belonging to them.
By “case,” we mean an illustrative example that aligns with your research interest and the resulting research question; alternatively, a case may also lead to a broader research interest. The case allows you to test the research question in and through practical application and to discuss it within the context of the research process and the insights gained along the way, in order to draw conclusions that may and can extend beyond the specific individual case. The case consists of the relationships between the home and its residents, as well as the corresponding research question.
A piece of data—or multiple pieces of data—refers to information that is collected and analyzed as part of a research project. In this context, this includes, for example, plans, old and new photographs, video recordings, conversations, and interviews, which provide the basis for the history of the building and the biographies of its residents.
To expose = to present, to disclose. The research proposal provides a concise and precise overview of the research project. It outlines the title, research question, motivation, and research objectives, as well as the project’s relevance, context, theoretical and conceptual framework, approach, and methods, and integrates these elements into a coherent whole.
We are actually referring to the combination of house and housing biographies, but the housing biography focuses specifically on the people themselves, their actions and routines, their life paths, and their personal stories. When did they move into a house or apartment? What do they like (or dislike) about it? What does living there mean to them, and does their living practice and experience extend beyond the four walls?
As mentioned in the section on housing biographies, we typically discuss the interplay between house and housing biographies; however, the building (or apartment) itself can also be examined in terms of its history (Glaser 2015). The focus here is on aspects such as year of construction, builder, materials, type, ownership, residents, and development over time (renovations, additions, demolition, new construction, etc.).
In this context, by “iterative” we mean the repeated examination of a (research) subject at different points in time and from different perspectives, using different research questions and different media. See also Take.
By “material,” we mean all data that is or could be of interest and relevance to the specific case of a house and resident biography. Material can include, for example: personal reflections recorded as notes in a field journal, a guided, recorded, and/or transcribed interview, floor plans from the archives, self-drawn sketches of the building, film footage, etc. Raw material refers to the collected data that is analyzed, discussed, and processed in the course of the research.
The concept of “field” refers both to the location and to the people and objects involved that are the subject of a research study. In this context, the biographies of the house and its residents do not constitute a fixed “field,” but rather various contexts that are (or can be) incorporated into the research. For example, the shop or pub around the corner, or the workplace, can be part of the field even though they are not located in the house. Similarly, people and things that do not live in or are not present in the house can be part of the research field because they are significant to the residents. Furthermore, the research field includes relevant discourses, stories, and artifacts; standards, regulations, and materials; as well as activities related to living and building that become relevant within the context of the house and residents’ biographies.
The research design defines the scope of the study and the research methods. It should be continually refined throughout the process and not determined in advance—without knowing the case—but, ideally, should be guided by the case under investigation. How should the history of the house and its residents be told? What story emerges? How can this best be collected (data collection) and evaluated (analysis methods)? Which formats do I want to work with, and for what purposes can certain formats (e.g., photos, text, drawings) be particularly well utilized? For Urban Types, the only requirement is that different formats and methods be used and that they enrich one another.
The research question succinctly summarizes the research focus. It should be formulated grammatically as a question, and it is advisable to consider the implications of a “why” or “how” question. Decision-based questions (those that can be answered with ‘yes’ or “no”) are not recommended. In order to formulate the research question, one must first have reflected on the motivation and the research objectives.
By “situation,” we mean a specific relationship, a state at a particular point in time (past, present, future) in all its complexity, including the materiality of the space, the architectural and social conditions, and the associated sensory experiences. When we speak of describing a (living) situation, the aim is to make its complexity “experiential” for “others.” This can be achieved through textual, audio, or visual descriptions, or through a combination of these.
To narrow down the scope of our investigation, we employ the method known as “takes.” In music or film, these refer to recording sequences for preliminary segments or step-by-step recordings that can still be rearranged and modified. We understand the take as a variation on an approach, as an iteration, as an experimental setup for preliminary research questions that are further developed by adjusting the parameters of tools, methods, and circumstances. This approach can certainly also justify departing from conventional paths and developing new formats. It is a principle that does not seek to find the straight line between two points or to confirm arguments, but rather explores situational physical and social arrangements in the urban context (wohnbund / HCU 2016: 78).
By “Urban Types,” we mean both architectural and social “types”—the buildings and the people. By “Urban,” we mean both the relationship between these “types” and the diverse forms of appropriation and usage inherent in them, as defined by the concept of the “urban.”
For Urban Types, we use an approach that examines the relationships between residents and their homes (apartments) from the perspective of how they are used. It is therefore less about the objects themselves (e.g., the house, pieces of furniture, or rooms) and more about the ways and conditions under which they are used. For example, a door between two rooms can be understood as a wall, a hole, or an opening/closure, depending on how it is used. Spaces, objects, and places are understood, interpreted, and used in different ways that do not always correspond to their function and often no longer do so.