This paper draws on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with Alaskan engineers, builders, and housing experts on cold climate housing design in Native Alaskan communities and explores multiple levels of challenges to designing and building in remote areas. It examines how the history of land ownership and governance in Alaska shapes the imaginaries of engineers and builders working to address housing equity in the state. Specifically, we study cold climate housing projects being carried out in Alaska and compare the design of these projects to wider colonial legacies and failed housing policies. This includes examining both considerations that need to be made at the start of design and engineering projects, as well as how complexity figures into the culture of cold climate engineers and builders in Alaska. Theoretically, this paper draws on Annemarie Mol and John Law’s conceptualization of complexity as a social practice (2002), in which they argue against reductionism by calling attention to the “multiplicity” of ways in which actions and knowledge come into being. In drawing on this work, we seek to engage with multiple histories and worldviews, including dominant notions of “home” that contribute to reproducing housing insecurity and colonial legacies in rural communities (Christensen 2017). Building on this theoretical framework, we thread together a critical description of the social terrain in which engineering and building projects in remote Alaska Native communities are situated. Such situated understandings necessitate engineers and builders working on these projects to think locally while recognizing the broader contributions of home designs developed thousands of miles from the Arctic. The implications of this complexity, we argue, are important for engineering educators and students to incorporate in their approaches to design and engineering learning opportunities across multiple contexts, including engineering programs, construction, architecture, industrial design, environmental and sustainability science, and the social sciences. To address complex challenges in which these disciplines must all take part, engineers and others who make up these teams of diverse expertise must navigate layers of complexity and understand and value how social forces shape building projects. Cold climate contexts like the ones we describe here provide examples that can engage educators, learners, and practitioners.
more »
« less
Collaborative Housing Design: A Case Study on Developing Learning Activities that Cross Cultural, Climatic and Geographical Differences
Not AvailableIn Designs for the Pluriverse, Arturo Escobar argues that the act of designing involves “much more than the creation of objects”; it also produces “diverse forms of life and, often, contrasting notions of sociability and the world” (2018: 3). In our anthropological fieldwork with Alaska Native communities that have grappled with housing insecurity issues for multiple generations, we have found this concept to be a reality. As we learned about collaborative housing design practices in Alaska, we found that socio-material artifacts are useful for engaging with a wide range of critical stakeholders. Alternative design frameworks are needed to address the complexity of problems and solutions in remote Alaskan villages, where technological and cultural practices can contrast in settings of extreme climate conditions. As engineering students prepare for complex challenges like those faced in Alaska, they must learn ways of adapting to and developing alternative design frameworks. Drawing on Escobar’s frame of “sociability,” we have developed a series of design learning activities that guide students in alternative design projects while learning about the Alaskan context using situated examples from our anthropological fieldwork and research. In learning contexts ranging from design courses to community co-design and engineering workshops that we are currently planning, we are integrating active learning activities that bring our experiences to the classroom and offer opportunities for learners to imagine, hack, and make. In this paper, we explore theoretical and alternative design frameworks for integrating research into school and work, using a studentdesigned learning artifact called AlaskaCraft as an example of how the complexity of this history and research has made its way into the classroom.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2321931
- PAR ID:
- 10664615
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE Conferences
- Date Published:
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- design active learning complexity anthropology Alaska housing
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This paper examines how a small cadre of builders are “queering” design in Alaska. Specifically, it draws on 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork to introduce the concept of “design queering” as an analytical framework for situating the creative practices of housing designers within wider debates about housing insecurity and activism in the Panarctic. This requires drawing on queer theory (e.g., Hayward 2010; Hayward and Che 2017; Boyce, Gonzalez-Polledo, and Posocco 2020) to describe how a set of intersecting experiences inspired this small group of builders to develop a kit-of-parts prototype. This prototype is influenced by the lessons these builders learned while collaborating with rural Alaskan communities on building projects where they witnessed how contemporary construction methods pollute landscapes and force homeowners into what Michelle Murphy has termed “regimes of chemical living” (2008). Later, through their own personal research efforts they began to weave together a set of construction principles for decolonizing the building industry, both in Alaska and beyond. These principles include design for disassembly, designing for the circular economy, and the notion of home ownership as a human right. By mapping out how this prototype came into being through the “queering” of housing design, this paper explores what a “future beyond crisis” might look like from the perspective of a small group of builders who are invested in transforming the structural inequalities produced by construction industries in Alaska and beyond.more » « less
-
Addressing the 2023 theme of Global Responsibilities of Engineers, in particular the disproportionate impacts of climate change on communities in remote regions of Alaska, this paper tracks the “social life” of a prefabricated frame assembly system designed for constructing homes in emergency contexts in northern Alaska (Appadurai 1986). An Alaskan housing research center began using this prefabricated system over a decade ago, in a time of crisis caused by major spring flooding in an Alaskan riverine community that has long grappled with housing shortages. The destruction of these homes, along with the possessions of the people living in them, was a tremendous loss to this community. The region’s short building season and dependency on barge and aerial transportation services for shipping in building supplies further compounded these challenges. In response, local and federal agencies came together and decided on a housing design that uses an integrated wall and truss system that could be prefabricated off-site, shipped out, rapidly assembled by volunteer building crews in the affected site, and that facilitated a highly insulated energy efficient home. As a result, this design played a critical role in mediating further disaster. Fast-forward to the present, the housing research center continues to opt for this system for most remote designs, but builders and engineers have begun to debate whether its advantages outweigh some of its logistical challenges. Some argue that its value has been overstated, while others describe it as a practical and affordable method for building energy efficient homes in remote Alaskan communities. Still others have adapted its design to fit their needs, thus producing new variations of the design, while also showing how the design of this building system might be reimagined. A deep dive into this debate provides an opportunity to analyze how both knowledge building and moral stances inform the ways that engineers assume global responsibilities related to communities affected by climate change. Drawing on three years of ethnographic research among Alaskan engineers, builders, housing advocates, and community stakeholders, this case study reflects what design scholars describe) as the “moralization of technology” through engineering practices (Verbeek 2006: 269). From this perspective, engineering systems may take on multiple meanings and applications, including marking differences in thought, creativity, and moral affinity among experts who are working to addressing affordable housing needs in Alaska. Reflecting on these differences in perspective, this paper tracks the “cultural biography” of this engineered system across time, place, and institutional, cultural, and geographic settings to probe how debates about the efficacy of this prefabricated system come to index varying moral stances and value systems that are deeply qualitative but also very much a part of the technical and materializing processes of the building design (Kopytoff 1986). As a case study, this analysis also can serve as a teaching tool in engineering and interdisciplinary classrooms for examining the integrative nature of ethics and technology as related to a range of human impacts on the environment and marginalized communities.more » « less
-
This study initiated an exploration into how community members, specialists in housing issues, and social scientists might collaborate to address homelessness in Alaska. Through interviews and participant observation of planning meetings and related activities, the researchers are gathering insights from design experts, community organizers, and experts working on urban-rural homelessness in Alaska. This includes gathering information about cold weather design processes and issues facing urban-rural homelessness in Alaska, as well as the identification of possible research questions that can inform the development of a grant application for a multi-year research study. The study includes in-person as well as virtual research activities. Because of geographic distances, the majority of initial research activities were conducted virtually, but in-person field site visits began to take place June 15, 2021, and subsequent trips have taken place from August 2021-onward. These research trips involve site visits, participation in meetings, and in-person interviews when possible. Phase 1: 24 initial interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders about housing insecurity in Alaska and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Includes interviewees from remote villages, from the Association of Alaskan Housing Authorities (AAHA), homeless advocates, designers, social scientists, engineers, and builders. Topics included myths about homelessness, homeless versus houseless terminology, research organizations, policies, impacts of pandemic, housing needs, and contrasting strategies. Analysis and synthesis with subsequent data is ongoing. 01: policy 02: interview with researcher 03: homelessness - Anchorage - rural communities - data sharing 04: design in rural communities 05: housing shortages in rural communities 06: technical issues in housing - collaborating with rural communities 07: homeless community in Fairbanks 08: history of Cold Climate Housing Research Center 09: design - homelessness - Anchorage 10: homelessness - rural/hub/urban - need for housing design repository 11: homelessness - Nome - Savoonga - designers need to visit villages 12: reverse interview - designer interviews researchers 13: homelessness - Anchorage - Bethel - housing costs 14: homelessness - rural/hub/urban spectrum - subsistence - houseless term 15: homelessness data and Bethel - impacts of pandemic - myths 16: homelessness data and Bethel - impacts of pandemic 17: ISERC (Integrated Security Education and Research Center) research 18: homelessness data and Bethel - CARES Act 19: homelessness data (gaps) and Bethel - CARES Act 20: homelessness data and Bethel 21: designer - public awareness and museum exhibits 22: veterans and community organizer 23: AAHA staff member 24: homelessness - Fairbanks - pandemic impacts on rescue missions Phase 2: 49 additional interviews were conducted with support from NSF funding (NSF 2103356: RAPID: COVID-19, Remote Ethnography, and the Rural Alaskan Housing Crisis). A meta-data description of the participants and topics are attached ('RAPID_interview_list___Descriptions').more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This study investigates how teachers verbally support students to engage in integrated engineering, science, and computer science activities across the implementation of an engineering project. This is important as recent research has focused on understanding how precollege students’ engagement in engineering practices is supported by teachers (Watkins et al., 2018) and the benefits of integrating engineering in precollege classes, including improved achievement in science, ability to engage in science and engineering practices inherent to engineering (i.e., engineering design), and increased awareness of engineering (National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council; Katehi et al., 2009). Further, there is a national emphasis on integrating engineering, science, and computer science practices and concepts in science classrooms (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Yet little research has considered how teachers implement these disciplines together within one classroom, particularly elementary teachers who often have little prior experience in teaching engineering and may need support to integrate engineering design into elementary science classroom settings. In particular, this study explores how elementary teachers verbally support science and computer science concepts and practices to be implicitly and explicitly integrated into an engineering project by implementing support intended by curricular materials and/or adding their own verbal support. Implicit use of integration included students engaging in integrated practices without support to know that they were doing so; explicit use of integration included teachers providing support for students to know how and why they were integrating disciplines. Our research questions include: (1) To what extent did teachers provide implicit and explicit verbal support of integration in implementation versus how it was intended in curricular materials? (2) Does this look different between two differently-tracked class sections? Participants include two fifth-grade teachers who co-led two fifth-grade classes through a four-week engineering project. The project focused on redesigning school surfaces to mitigate water runoff. Teachers integrated disciplines by supporting students to create computational models of underlying scientific concepts to develop engineering solutions. One class had a larger proportion of students who were tracked into accelerated mathematics; the other class had a larger proportion of students with individualized educational plans (IEPs). Transcripts of whole class discussion were analyzed for instances that addressed the integration of disciplines or supported students to engage in integrated activities. Results show that all instances of integration were implicit for the class with students in advanced mathematics while most were explicit for the class with students with IEPs. Additionally, support was mainly added by the teachers rather than suggested by curricular materials. Most commonly, teachers added integration between computer science and engineering. Implications of this study are an important consideration for the support that teachers need to engage in the important, but challenging, work of integrating science and computer science practices through engineering lessons within elementary science classrooms. Particularly, we consider how to assist teachers with their verbal supports of integrated curricula through engineering lessons in elementary classrooms. This study then has the potential to significantly impact the state of knowledge in interdisciplinary learning through engineering for elementary students.more » « less
An official website of the United States government

