HOW BUILT SPACES MEAN 353(themselves “primary” interpretations) as these are narrated to or observed by them (including
reading accounts of such experiences as a form of observation). (This is the double hermeneutic
noted by Giddens and discussed by Mark Bevir and Patrick Jackson in their respective chapters,
this volume.) Both researcher and researched are situated entities: The meaning making of and
meanings made by both are contextualized by prior knowledge, including of history and sur-
rounding elements (other events, other experiences)—a third central presupposition.^6 This
situatedness has several implications for the character of interpretive research and its practices.
Presupposing the context specificity of meaning implies that spatial “realities” may be con-
strued differently by different people, because of the different “a priori’s” they bring to present-
day events and circumstances. Meaning is culturally and/or situationally specific, whether at
national, regional or local, or departmental, organizational or industry levels.^7 Living in a social
world of potentially multiple “realities” and multiple interpretations means that a researcher needs
to be aware of the wide variety of “users” of a research-relevant space, both near and far (for
example, readers of an annual report containing photographs of organizational headquarters).
Moreover, researchers must be very cautious about assuming that a spatial design carries the
same meaning for all of these audiences and users. As with other interpretive methods, although
the researcher uses himself as an “instrument” of research, interpretations are always provisional,
held up for confirmation or disconfirmation against evidence from other observations, docu-
ments, and/or conversations, and subject to corroboration, or refutation, by members of the situ-
ation under study.^8
ACCESSING SPACE DATA
In beginning to think about a research question involving space, researchers need to identify both
the settings and/or the situations that are potential sources of space data and the processes for
accessing them.
Inquiry processes: Where to look, what to look for? Various categories that were developed ini-
tially for dramaturgical and literary analyses, along with theatrical metaphors used in social sci-
ence, highlight the performative dimensions of space design and its use. They are helpful in space
analysis in directing researchers’ attention beyond the scaffolding and sheathing that is readily
present for viewing.
Burke’s analogy to drama (1969 [1945]; see also Feldman 1995; Gusfield 1989) yields a use-
ful set of categories for provoking reflection about where to locate meaning-focused data in an
action context. He proposed analyzing human action in terms of the “scene” or setting, as well as
the agent, act, agency, and purpose (corresponding to the where, the who, the what, the how, and
the why of the episode or event; I return to acts below).
Implicated in Burke’s five-part category set is a sixth that emerged later in literary theory
concerning the locus of meaning. Earlier theories had debated whether textual meaning resides in
the texts themselves (see, e.g., Ciardi 1959)—in this case, the analogy is to building design and
attendant objects—or in the author’s intent (here, designers and/or those commissioning the space).
Reader-response theories (e.g., Iser 1989) render this binary relationship problematic by intro-
ducing the idea that readers bring their own interpretive lenses to their readings of texts. This is
the missing sixth element in Burke’s schema: the audience (or reader) beyond the so-called fourth
wall of the stage. Moving beyond intended authorial or designers’ meanings and the materials
themselves to include users’ interpretations is a central third dimension of spatial analysis.
One of the central presuppositions of interpretive analysis emerges in such an approach:
In according agency also to “audiences” of a communicative act, interpretations of meaning-