An Examination of the Common Techniques for Case Studies in Architectural Design

‘Case study’ is a common term in architecture referring to both the use of past projects as backdrops and a research strategy in a more general sense. Case study methodology is of particular importance in architectural pedagogy and research, because on one hand its widespread use cause confusion and weaknesses, and on the other hand having a good command of architecturally oriented features of case studies can shed light on the discipline’s neglected aspects. The two topics studied so far in this connection are its negligence as a systematic pedagogical tool and the vagueness of the boundaries between copying and proper adoption of the studied cases.
The aim of this study is to identify and assess case study techniques in two respects: methodological clarity and the ways in which case studies influence design, in order to fulfil prerequisites of its strategic organisation for the production of architectural knowledge. Nine current techniques are identified in this research. They are then positioned among four main areas, namely, ‘clear-‎pedagogical’, ‘clear-research-oriented’, ‘unclear-pedagogical’, and ‘unclear-research-oriented’. The results show that those techniques that are subjective and geometry-/ graphic-based are much more widely used than comparative, calculation-/ examination-based techniques. The positioning of the former show that they are limited in scope, lacking sufficient theoretical support, and mostly realised in pedagogy as paradigms rather than critical, transformational research. Apparently, the simple looks of certain techniques plus the late manifestation of their shortcomings gives the impression of their prevalence, whilst ruling them out as unhelpful can in turn result in their elimination instead of prompting attempts for their improvement.‎