Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRicky, Ben
dc.contributor.authorVeliz Reyes, Aen
dc.contributor.editorGolembiewski, Jen
dc.contributor.editorBennett, Ken

This paper presents a grounded theory study conceptualising the socio-spatial relationships and lived experiences of residents with a dementia diagnosis in two residential care homes in the United Kingdom. The study challenges generalisations and abstractions of occupants in the design and construction of the built environment, such as through design guides, and prioritises the lived experiences and aspirations of care home residents as rich sources of design knowledge, enabling the articulation of new conceptual and spatial relationships between residents and their physical environment. Mixed qualitative methods were used to build knowledge and construct theory directly from participants in fieldwork, and the constant comparison method was used to systematically derive a grounded theory of the research context. A theory model is constructed that encompasses embodied spatial characteristics, famed as 'liminalities', ‘affordances’ and ‘enablement’, and discrepancies in the representation and realisation of residential care homes, in 'ideologies of spatial conception', and in 'veridictions'. Moreover, the paper illustrates ethical and methodological approaches to architectural research fieldwork in environments with vulnerable people and suggests further research to address co-design methodologies, and ethics in architectural research.

dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.subjectarchitecture fieldworken
dc.subjectcare home designen
dc.subjectdesign for dementiaen
dc.subjectgrounded theoryen
dc.subjectsocio-spatial relationshipsen
dc.titleSocio-spatial relationships in design of residential care homes for people living with dementia diagnoses: a grounded theory approachen
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.issueSpecial Issue: Architectural Design Science for Dementiaen
plymouth.journalArchitectural Science Reviewen
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business/School of Art, Design and Architecture
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA13 Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot knownen
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International

All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
@mire NV