This paper documents three investigations of the connections among human values, behavior, and space in residential settings. In Stage I, a feminist theoretical perspective and the method of content analysis were joined in an examination of house plans to determine links between women's changing roles and noticeable changes in house plans. In Stage II, a more general sociological theoretical perspective of gender was combined with three–dimensional scale models and interviewing to examine more directly the interaction of personal values, behavior, and spatial preferences. Because the findings of Stage II provided research hypotheses but failed fully to explain the reciprocal interaction between people and space, the theoretical perspective and method were refined for a more detailed Stage III study. In that stage theoretical perspectives and research methods were merged for exploring social and spatial issues in domestic space. The aim of this paper is to explain the cyclical process of imaging, presenting, testing, and refining necessary for the formulation of theory and corresponding methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldousJ., (Ed.) (1982). Two paychecks: Life in dual earner families. Beverly Hills : Sage.
2.
AlexanderJ.C. (1988). The new theoretical movement. In SmelserN., (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology (pp. 77–101). Beverly Hills : Sage.
3.
BachelardG. (1969). The poetics of space. Boston : Beacon Press.
4.
BairdJ. C., CassidyB., & KurrJ. (1978). Room preference as a function of architectural features and user activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (6), 719–727.
5.
BarkerR. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying human behavior. Stanford : Stanford University Press.
6.
BechtelR. (1977). Enclosing behavior. Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchimon and Ross.
7.
BernsteinB. (1975). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. New York : Schocken Books.
8.
BoysJ. (1984). Is there a feminist analysis of architecture?Built Environment, 10, 25–34.
9.
BrinkerhoffM. B., (Ed.) (1984). Family and work: Comparative convergences. Westport : Greenwood Press.
10.
BullockN. (1988). First the kitchen–then the facade. Journal of Design History, 7(3–4), 177–192.
11.
CanterD. (1977). The psychology of place. London : Architectural Press.
12.
Cooper–MarcusG. & SarkissianW. (1986). Housing as if people mattered. Berkeley : University of California Press.
DouthittR. A. (1989). The division of labor within the home: Have gender roles changed?Sex Roles, 20 (11–12), 693–704.
15.
DelongA. J. (1976). The use of scale models in spatial–behavioral research. Man-Environment Systems, 1, 179–182.
16.
DelongA. J. (1977). The accuracy of spatial perception by informants in scale model environments. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 55–58.
17.
EnglandP., & FarkasG. (1986). Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic and demographic view. New York : Aldine.
18.
FoxK. (1986). Metropolitan America: Urban life and urban policy in the United States, 1940–1980. Jackson : University Press of Mississippi.
19.
FranckK. A. (1985). Social construction of the physical environment: The case of gender. Sociological Focus, 18 (2), 143–157.
20.
FranckK. A. & AhrenlzenS. (1989). New households, new housing. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
21.
GalambosN. L., PetersenA. C., RichardsM., & GitelsonI.B. (1985). The attitudes toward women scale for adolescents (AWSA): A study of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13, 343–456.
22.
GlennonL. M. (1983). Synthesisism: A case of feminist methodology. In MorganGareth (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 260–271). New York : Sage.
23.
GoffmanE. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York : Free Press.
HardieG. J. (1983). The use of simulations as a means of informing design from a “people's perspective”. In JoinerD., BrimilcombeG., DaishJ., GrayJ., & KernohanD. (Eds.), Conference on people and physical environment research (pp. 439–447). Wellington : New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development.
26.
HasellM. J., & BenhamouR. (1988). Interior design: A dynamic systems view. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 14 (2), 13–22.
27.
HasellM. J., & PeatrosF.D. (1990). Exploring connections between women's changing roles and house forms. Environment and Behavior, 22 (1), 3–26.
28.
HasellM. J. & PeatrossF. D. & Bono–BoyettC. A. (unpublished anuscript). Gender choice and domestic space: Preferences for kitchens in married households. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research.
29.
HaydenD. (1981). The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
30.
HillierB., & HansonJ. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
31.
HillierB. & LeamanA. (1973). The man–environment paradigm and its paradoxes. Architectural Design, 43, 507–511.
32.
HolstiO.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA : Addison–Wesley.
33.
IglehartA. P. (1979). Married women and work, 1957 and 1976. Lexington, MA : D. C. Heath, Lexington Books.
34.
KaplanS. (1983). A model of person–environment compatibility. Environment and Behavior, 75, 311–332.
35.
KaplanR., KaplanS., & DeardorffH. L. (1974). The perception and evaluation of a simulated environmentMan-Environment Systems, 4, 191.
36.
KrippendorffK. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills : Sage.
37.
LangJ. (1982). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Towards a research agenda. In BartPollyet al. (Eds.), Knowledge for design (pp. 172–182). Washington, DC : EDRA Inc.
38.
LangJ. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
39.
LarwoodL., StrombergA. H., & GutekB. A., (Eds.) (1985). Women and work: An annualreview(Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
40.
LasswellH. (1979). The signature of power: Buildings, communication and policy. New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction Books.
41.
LaumannE. O., & HouseJ. S. (1970). Living room styles and social attributes: The patterning of material artifacts in a modern urban community. In LaumannE. O., SiegelP. M., and HodgeR. W. (Eds.), The logic of social hierarchies (pp. 189–203). Chicago : Markham Press.
42.
LawrenceR. J. (1979). Dual representations of domestic space: Users and architects in the design process. In SeidelA. and DanfordS., Environmental design: Research, theory, and application (pp. 119–129). Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the EDRA.
43.
LawrenceR. J. (1982). A psychological–spatial approach for architectural design and research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 (1), 37–51.
44.
LawrenceR.J. (1987). Housing, dwellings and homes: Design theory, research and practice. New York : Wiley.
45.
LeinL. (1984). Families without villains. Lexington, MA : D. C. Heath, Lexington Books.
46.
MacKenzieS., & RoseD. (1983). Industrial change, the domestic economy and home life. In AndersonJ., DuncanS., & HudsonR. (Eds.) Redundant spaces in cities and regions (pp. 134–167). London : Academic Press.
47.
MadiganR., MunroM., & SmithS. J. (1990). Gender and the meaning of the home. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 14 (4), 625–647.
48.
Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man–made environment. London : Pluto Press.
49.
MitchellC. T. (1983, September 21). New housing design being tried in East Wahdat. Jordan Times, p. 5.
50.
MoleskiW. (1974). Behavioral analysis and environmental programming for offices. In LangJ.et al. (Eds.), Designing for human behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 302–315). Stroudsburg, PA. : Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
51.
MorganG., (Ed.) (1983). Beyond method: Strategies for social research. New York : Sage.
52.
NyquistL., SlivkenK., SpenceJ. T., & HelmreichR. L. (1985). Household responsibilities in middle–class couples: The contribution of demographic and personality variables. Sex Roles, 12, 15–33.
53.
OakleyA. (1974). Woman's work: The housewife, past and present. New York : Vintage Books.
54.
OppenheimerV. K. (1982). Work and the family: A study in social demography. New York : Academic Press.
55.
PeatrossF. D. & HasellM. H. (in press). Changing lives/changing spaces: An investigation of the relationships between gender orientation and behaviors, and spacial preferences in residential kitchens. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 9 (1), 1–19.
56.
PerinC. (1974). The social order of environmental design. In LangJ., BurnetteC., MoleskiW., & VachonD. (Eds.), Designing for human behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 31–42). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
57.
PhillipsD. C. (1987). Philosophy, science and social inquiry: Contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research. Oxford : Pergamon Press.
58.
PurcellA. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18, 3–30.
59.
RapoportR., & RapoportR.N. (1982). The next generation in dual–earner family research. In AldousJ. (Ed.), Two paychecks: Life in dual–earner families (pp. 229–244). Beverly Hills : Sage.
60.
Rhode, DeborahL. (Ed.) (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual differences. New Haven : Yale University Press.
61.
RockC., TorreS., & WrightG. (1980). The appropriation of the house: Changes in house design and concepts of domesticity. In WekerleG. R., PetersonR., & MorleyD., New space for women (pp. 83–100). Boulder : Westview.
62.
RybczynskiW. (1986). Home: A short history of an idea. New York : Viking Penguin Books.
63.
ScanzoniJ. & SzinovaczM. (1980). Family decision making: A developmental sex role model. Beverly Hills : Sage.
64.
SmithR.L. & BradleyD.W. (1980). In defense of the attitude toward women scale: An affirmation of validity and reliability. Psychological Reports, 47, 511–522.
65.
SpragueJ. F. (1991). More than housing: Lifeboats for women and children. Boston : Butterworth Architecture.
66.
TateA. & SmithC.R. (1986). Interior design in the 20th century. New York : Harper &Row Publishers.
67.
ThorntonA. & FreedmanD.S. (1979). Changes in the sex role attitudes of women, 1962–1977. American Sociological Review, 44, 832.
68.
TognoliJ. (1980). Differences in women's and men's responses to domestic space. Sex Roles, 6, 833–842.
69.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1954). Table 2: Selected Characteristics of New Nonfarm 1–Family Houses Started, by Location, First Quarter 1954. US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.
70.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970). Construction Reports Series C 25. Characteristics of new one–family homes: 1970. Tables 5,7. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
71.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1977). Construction Reports Series C 25. Characteristics of new housing: July, 1977. Tables 5,14. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
72.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981). Construction Reports Series: C 25. Characteristics of new housing: July 1981. Tables 5, 14. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
73.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1985). Current Population Reports Series P–20 0402. Households, families, marital status, and living arrangements: March 1985. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
74.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1986). Construction Reports Series C 25. Characteristics of new housing: June 1986. Tables 5,14. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
75.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1988). Construction Reports Series C 25. Characteristics of new housing: July 1988. Tables 5, 14. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
76.
van VlietW., (Ed.) (1988). Women, housing and community. Avebury : Aldershot.
77.
VoydanoffP. (1987). Work and family lift. Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
78.
VoydanoffP. (1984). Work and family: Changing roles of men and women. Palo Alto, CA : Mayfield.
79.
WatsonS. (1986). Women and housing or feminist housing analysis. Housing Studies, 1, 1–10.
80.
WeberR. P. (1990). 2nd ed.Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
81.
WrightG. (1987). Domestic architecture and the cultures of domesticity. Design Quarterly, 138, 13–19.
82.
ZeiselJ. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment–behavior research. Monterey, CA : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
