358 ANALYZING DATA
- design “gestures” that use design vocabularies to communicate relationships, such as
affect and status displays (corresponding to the nonverbal category of kinesics, facial
expressions and hand gestures that do the same); - proxemics, the uses of spatial proximity and distance;
- “decor” itself.^19
The categories focus analytic attention on different ways in which built spaces may communicate
meaning(s), suggesting the kinds of spatial elements (symbols or signs) the researcher might
analyze. Symbols, processes, and the meanings themselves are highly culturally and contextually
specific.Design VocabulariesDesign vocabularies include such things as shape, height, width, and mass; materials (glass, wood,
cement, stone, shingle, etc.) and their color, tone, and texture; landscaping; the quality of light
and dark, airiness and coziness; and so on. The historical or aesthetic reference points of architec-
tural design (e.g., classical Greco-Roman columns, modernist styling), the “labeling” of rooms
and spaces and their designation as “appropriate” to certain activities,^20 and the values, beliefs, or
feelings they represent and evoke are also included here.
Analysis of design vocabulary is often comparative, sometimes explicitly so: Whether a build-
ing, a courtyard, or a reception area, a usage designation is analyzed in light of the concern,
explicit or implicit, “As opposed to what?” It is a situationally specific comparison of similarities
and differences. For example, in trying to understand the significance of the community center
design to clients and potential clients at various socioeconomic levels living in different parts of
town, I compared the design elements used in those buildings with the elements used in other
buildings affiliated with other organizations, public and private, intended to serve similar pur-
poses in the same locale (so, the same geographic and socioeconomic context, but varying the
organizational type); with other public buildings serving various purposes (i.e., varying the pro-
gram type); and with surrounding residences of various types. The contrasts highlighted the fea-
tures that were unique to the center buildings, both externally—size, scale, mass, materials (glass,
stone), and siting—and internally—ceiling heights, furnishings (upholstered armchairs), and deco-
rative elements (reproductions of Impressionist paintings).
Design vocabularies are usefully analyzed in terms of their meanings in a broader societal or
cultural context. These meanings may be attributed to the occupants of the spaces marked by
these elements. So, for example, in cultures in which quantity is an indicator of status, designs
entailing great expense may be read with similar meaning. In the United States, the greater the
number or the costlier the quality of furnishings, or the better the quality of construction materi-
als, or the larger the space, the higher the rank or other status (typically) of the occupant relative
to others in a similar grouping (e.g., town residents or an occupational grouping). (In organiza-
tions, equivalent rank or status is also attributed to the occupant’s secretary relative to other
secretaries.) And vice versa: Lesser quality space and less-costly design elements are typically
assigned to occupants of lower rank and status. As rank is commonly correlated with power,
this spatial association is what makes for the seeming anomaly and ensuing surprise at the
discovery that persons with lesser rank and its spatial and other artifactual associations—in an
organizational setting, for example, the ground-floor receptionist, the mail sorter in the base-
ment, tech support on the lower floor, or the janitor whose “office” is a closet—may be centers
of power (in these cases, due to their respective commands of information, in some cases cor-
related with physical location).