A natural model for architecture : the nature of the evolutionary model 1995

John Frazer's architectural work is inspired by living and generative processes. Both evolutionary and revolutionary, it explores informatin ecologies and the dynamics of the spaces between objects. Fuelled by an interest in the cybernetic work of Gordon Pask and Norbert Wiener, and the possibilities of the computer and the "new science" it has facilitated, Frazer and his team of collaborators have conducted a series of experiments that utilize genetic algorithms, cellular automata, emergent behaviour, complexity and feedback loops to create a truly dynamic architecture. Frazer studied at the Architectural Association (AA) in London from 1963 to 1969, and later became unit master of Diploma Unit 11 there. He was subsequently Director of Computer-Aided Design at the University of Ulter - a post he held while writing An Evolutionary Architecture in 1995 - and a lecturer at the University of Cambridge. In 1983 he co-founded Autographics Software Ltd, which pioneered microprocessor graphics. Frazer was awarded a person chair at the University of Ulster in 1984. In Frazer's hands, architecture becomes machine-readable, formally open-ended and responsive. His work as computer consultant to Cedric Price's Generator Project of 1976 (see P84)led to the development of a series of tools and processes; these have resulted in projects such as the Calbuild Kit (1985) and the Universal Constructor (1990). These subsequent computer-orientated architectural machines are makers of architectural form beyond the full control of the architect-programmer. Frazer makes much reference to the multi-celled relationships found in nature, and their ongoing morphosis in response to continually changing contextual criteria. He defines the elements that describe his evolutionary architectural model thus: "A genetic code script, rules for the development of the code, mapping of the code to a virtual model, the nature of the environment for the development of the model and, most importantly, the criteria for selection. In setting out these parameters for designing evolutionary architectures, Frazer goes beyond the usual notions of architectural beauty and aesthetics. Nevertheless his work is not without an aesthetic: some pieces are a frenzy of mad wire, while others have a modularity that is reminiscent of biological form. Algorithms form the basis of Frazer's designs. These algorithms determine a variety of formal results dependent on the nature of the information they are given. His work, therefore, is always dynamic, always evolving and always different. Designing with algorithms is also critical to other architects featured in this book, such as Marcos Novak (see p150). Frazer has made an unparalleled contribution to defining architectural possibilities for the twenty-first century, and remains an inspiration to architects seeking to create responsive environments. Architects were initially slow to pick up on the opportunities that the computer provides. These opportunities are both representational and spatial: computers can help architects draw buildings and, more importantly, they can help architects create varied spaces, both virtual and actual. Frazer's work was groundbreaking in this respect, and well before its time.

Kaleidoscope : Reframing learning and teaching evaluation through a shared stakeholder lens

Sector wide interest in Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework continues with a number of institutions requesting finer details as QUT embeds the new approach to evaluation across the university in 2013. This interest, both nationally and internationally has warranted QUT’s collegial response to draw upon its experiences from developing Reframe into distilling and offering Kaleidoscope back to the sector. The word Reframe is a relevant reference for QUT’s specific re-evaluation, reframing and adoption of a new approach to evaluation; whereas Kaleidoscope reflects the unique lens through which any other institution will need to view their own cultural specificity and local context through an extensive user-led stakeholder engagement approach when introducing new approaches to learning and teaching evaluation. Kaleidoscope’s objectives are for QUT to develop its research-based stakeholder approach to distil the successful experience exhibited in the Reframe Project into a transferable set of guidelines for use by other tertiary institutions across the sector. These guidelines will assist others to design, develop, and deploy, their own culturally specific widespread organisational change informed by stakeholder engagement and organisational buy-in. It is intended that these guidelines will promote, support and enable other tertiary institutions to embark on their own evaluation projects and maximise impact. Kaleidoscope offers an institutional case study of widespread organisational change underpinned by Reframe’s (i) evidence-based methodology; (ii) research including published environmental scan, literature review (Alderman, et al., 2012), development of a conceptual model (Alderman, et al., in press 2013), project management principles (Alderman & Melanie, 2012) and national conference peer reviews; and (iii) year-long strategic project with national outreach to collaboratively engage the development of a draft set of National Guidelines. Kaleidoscope’s aims are to inform Higher Education evaluation policy development through national stakeholder engagement, the finalisation of proposed National Guidelines. In correlation with the conference paper, the authors will present a Draft Guidelines and Framework ready for external peer review by evaluation practitioners from the Higher Education sector, as part of Kaleidoscope’s dissemination strategy (Hinton & Gannaway, 2011) applying illuminative evaluation theory (Parlett & Hamilton, 1976), through conference workshops and ongoing discussions (Shapiro, et al., 1983; Jacobs, 2000). The initial National Guidelines will be distilled from the Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework’s Policy, Protocols, and incorporated Business Rules. It is intended that the outcomes of Kaleidoscope are owned by and reflect sectoral engagement, including iterative evaluation through multiple avenues of dissemination and collaboration including the Higher Education sector. The dissemination strategy with the inclusion of Illuminative Evaluation methodology provides an inclusive opportunity for other institutions and stakeholders across the Higher Education sector to give voice through the information-gathering component of evaluating the draft Guidelines, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complex realities experienced across the Higher Education sector, and thereby ‘illuminating’ both the shared and unique lenses and contexts. This process will enable any final guidelines developed to have broader applicability, greater acceptance, enhanced sustainability and additional relevance benefiting the Higher Education sector, and the adoption and adaption by any single institution for their local contexts.

Kaleidoscope : shaping a better future through a stakeholder approach to widespread organisational change

The main focus of ‘Kaleidoscope: Reframing evaluation through a stakeholder approach to sustainable, cultural change in Higher Education’ is to develop a set of principles to guide user-led engagement in widespread organisational change and maximise its impact. The word kaleidoscope represents the unique lens through which each institution will need to view their cultural specificity and local context through an extensive process of collaboration and engagement, followed by communication and dissemination. Kaleidoscope has particular relevance when new approaches to learning and teaching evaluation are introduced by tertiary institutions. Building on the Reframe Project, which involved three years of user-led consultation and was designed to meet stakeholders’ needs, QUT successfully introduced a new evaluation framework in 2013 across the university. Reframe was evidence based, involved scholarly reflection and was founded on a strong theoretical framework. The evolution of the evaluation framework included analysis of scholarly literature and environmental scans across the higher education sector (Alderman, et al., 2012), researched development of conceptual theory (Alderman, et al., in press 2013), incorporated the stakeholder voice and framed within project management principles (Alderman & Melanie, 2012). Kaleidoscope’s objectives are for QUT to develop its research-based stakeholder approach to distil the successful experience exhibited in the Reframe Project into a transferable set of guidelines for use by other tertiary institutions across the sectors. These guidelines will assist others to design, develop, and deploy, their own culturally specific widespread organisational change informed by stakeholder engagement and organisational buy-in. It is intended that these guidelines will promote, support and enable other tertiary institutions to embark on their own projects and maximise the impact. In correlation with a our conference paper, this round table presents the Draft Guidelines and Framework ready for external peer review by evaluation practitioners, as part of Kaleidoscope’s dissemination (Hinton & Gannaway, 2011) applying illuminative evaluation theory (Parlett & Hamilton, 1976), through conference workshops and linked round table discussions (Shapiro, et al., 1983; Jacobs, 2000).

The transformation of bureaucracy? Structural change in the Commonwealth public service 1983-93

Commentators have predicted bureaucratic organisations would undergo substantial change as a result of social and economic pressures. We ask whether reforms to the Australian public service over the 1983–93 period exemplify this process. We use the methods of organisational analysis to characterise the direction of change, basing our assessment on the standard structural variables of complexity, formalisation and centralisation, together with a cultural variable. We find evidence that, overall, departments of state in the APS were becoming less bureaucratic in their structure, culture and internal function in the 1983–93 period. However, the effect was not uniform across departments, or unambiguous — formalisation, for example, increased in some respects and decreased in others. Centralisation increased overall, despite devolution of some decision-making.

Changing citizen confidence: Orientations towards political and social institutions in Australia, 1983-2010 [Review]

Since the early 1980s, when confidence in institutions was first measured in an Australian academic social survey, Australia - And the world - has faced many political, social and economic changes. From corporate scandals and company collapses, to unprecedented terrorist attacks, to major ongoing international conflicts, to changes in government and all manner of political machinations, to the global financial crisis and its aftermath. One consequence of such developments has been that many major political, social and economic institutions have come under intense pressure. Using survey research data, this paper investigates how public confidence in various Australian institutions and organisations has changed over time. The results are variable and in some instances surprising. Confidence in some institutions has remained high, and in some low, over an extended period of time. In other cases, confidence has varied quite markedly at different time points. As well as looking at trends in the level of public confidence in institutions, the paper examines different dimensions of confidence together with underpinning socio-political factors. It also discusses theoretical and practical implications of the data.

Nelson's (1976) Modified Card Sorting Test: A review

We review studies of Nelson's (1976) Modified Card Sorting Test (MCST) that have examined the performance of subjects with frontal lobe dysfunction. Six studies investigated the performance of normal controls and patients with frontal lobe dysfunction, whereas four studies compared the performance of frontal and nonfrontal patients. One further study compared the performance of amnesic patients both on the MCST and on the original Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Evidence regarding the MCST's differential sensitivity to frontal lobe dysfunction is weak, as is the evidence regarding the equivalence of the MCST and WCST. It is likely that the MCST is an altogether different test from the standard version. In the absence of proper normative data for the MCST, we provide a table of scores derived from the control groups of various studies. Given the paucity of evidence, further research is required before the MCST can be recommended for use as a marker of frontal lobe dysfunction.