Attempting to define design-build education in architecture

Literature concerning design-build (DB) education in architecture is following the rising tide of academic publication. With this comes an expanding dialogue of voices from diverse geographical and pedagogical backgrounds, each with contextually influenced notions of what DB means. Despite current literature being diverse in geographic origins, the field as a whole still carries the legacy of strong North American and, to a lesser degree, European influence. DB, referred to in this review as a pedagogical strategy in architecture and design education, is not a binding or globally consistent term; however, it is considered ubiquitous enough to establish a suitable boundary for this work. It should be acknowledged that DB is closely aligned and shares blurry edges with various models of service learning and sits under the increasingly recognised umbrella term of live projects (Delport, 2016), as illustrated by Smith et al. (2022) in Figure 1.

As a consequence, this review may omit references which align in principle with practices of DB education but fail to appear in keyword searches. Potential omissions have been reduced by adopting a mixed-methods search approach, combining systematic database reviews with an exploratory, author-led review. The results of these search methods are compared and discussed with reference to the range of publication methods and instances of duplications. Trends in publications are examined, identifying consistency between DB in architecture education and architecture education generally. Geographic analysis of references demonstrates the historical dominance of North American sources, which has shifted in favour of globally diverse sources since 2013. The prevalence of literature discussing the lack of a clear definition of DB education informs a review of formal definitions, which is reiterated by a broader call within DB research to establish more consistent language and terminology. In response to this, the review examines a selection of shortlisted book publications, undertaking a thematic analysis, to draw together recurring topics of discussion in DB and present thematic categorisations and terminology to support more consistent research and evaluation across the growing spectrum of DB activity in architectural education. For the purpose of this review, DB “program” is used to refer to any instance of DB activity being undertaken as part of architecture education due to the variety of terminology used and formats that DB education may take.

A collection of literature referencing DB in relation to architectural education has been undertaken using a mixed methods approach, identifying a total of 253 publications. This involved the combination of a systematic database review, based on Pickering and Byrne's (2014) search method for conducting systematic quantitative literature reviews (SQLR) and an exploratory search more typical of a traditional or narrative literature review. This approach evolved in response to the results of a systematic database search, which focused primarily on journal articles and conference proceedings. This omitted many reviews of DB education, which are published in books.

This search method used keywords entered into two citation databases, SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS), to generate a reproducible list of literature. All types of literature available in the databases were included in this search due to the varied nature of practices and research outputs in this field (Smith et al., 2022). Step 1 (Table 1) used variants on DB as keywords, producing 8,674 results. The search was refined in Steps 2 and 3 by adding the terms architectur* (allowing for architecture and architectural) and education in Step 3, which narrowed down the results to 276. Step 4 involved checking the combined list for duplications, which reduced the total to 241. Step 5 followed the SQLR method of using quantitative and qualitative criteria to assess relevance by language, title, keywords and a reading of abstracts where necessary. Exclusion of documents at this stage was attributed to a number of factors including non-English texts and misalignment of disciplines, such as texts referencing the architecture of information technology or the DB procurement method in engineering, construction and project management sectors. This method, illustrated in Table 1, produced 173 references authored by 168 unique author groups.

In addition to the SQLR search, Step 6 (Table 1) represents an exploratory search method undertaken by the authors, whereby relevant literature was collected over 18 months through personal inquiry. This method of collection is related to the more common, narrative style of review, following the author's own, potentially biased enquiry into the field of research (Pickering and Byrne, 2014). This method produced 94 references and was combined with the SQLR search. Duplications were removed, bringing the total to 253 references.

The small number of duplications identified in Step 6 (Table 1) is notable, demonstrating that 79 unique publications from the exploratory search were not identified using the SQLR search. These results support the recommendation of Pickering and Byrne (2014) that database search results be cross-checked with other reference lists. Smith et al. (2022) reinforce a mixed method of collection in the umbrella discipline of live project research, noting many important publications were omitted using the SQLR search method. This is an important observation for future research within this field, and it is recommended that the SQLR search method should accompany other search methods and/or broaden the citation databases beyond SCOPUS and WOS. A reverse search of SCOPUS and WOS databases to locate the 79 unique references from the exploratory search was able to locate 16, demonstrating that the keyword search failed to identify these references. This brought the total number of duplications to 31; however, this still leaves 63 references not discoverable in the databases, reinforcing the need for broad search methods for literature in this field. Delport's (2016) review of DB literature notes the use of additional keywords including hands on, live projects, full-scale, community work, design activist, on-site and alternative practice, highlighting the variety of terminology used to describe the practice and research in this field.

The comparative breakdown of results collected by both methods in Figure 2 reveals that the database searches consisted mostly of conference proceedings at 55%, while these made up only 25% of the exploratory review. Journal articles constituted similar proportions of both search methods at 45 and 47%, respectively. The exploratory review yielded a much higher proportion of books at 23%, compared to 4%, as well as uncovering a small number of reports and theses, which were not represented in the database searches.

The literature collected from the search methods described above was charted by time to assess trends in publications (Figure 3). Results after 2023 were omitted due to the publication lag, which under-represents recent years. This illustrates the first publication concerning DB in architecture education was noted in 1984. While this may present one of the first published records of DB in architectural education, Bader and Lepik (2020) suggest the term was used as early as 1971. Earlier records of similar activity exist under different terminology, such as the student-built projects at Yale in the 1960s (Hayes, 2007; Stonorov, 2018). Very little publication occurred in the field until the late 1990s, with a steady yet small contribution of DB publications from 1997 and a notable increase from 2011. Aside from a clear absence of publications pre-1992, these data are generally in line with publication outputs across the architectural design education sector, based on data collected from a quantitative search of two databases, SCOPUS and WOS (Figure 3). This comparison suggests there isn't anything significant to set DB publications apart from the surrounding field of research, which has seen a number of factors driving increased outputs, including pressure from professional institutions (Smith et al., 2022) and the overall academisation of education (Cordua and Sandness, 2023).

The small number of publications in DB literature prior to 1997 is possibly reflective of there being few educators practising DB or writing about it that was attractive for a journal to publish. The results are consistent with Anderson's (2021) review of literature from 1990 onwards relevant to live projects, the widely used umbrella term that incorporates DB and found only 2 relevant texts in the period 1990–1994, compared to 11, 12, 27, 37 and 50 relevant texts in the following 5-year interval to 2020. Anderson's findings align with Smith et al.’s (2022) review of the same field and demonstrate the emergence of live project research and, by implication, DB as a field of academic enquiry. The increase in available literature, while moving with the tide of academic publications, also hinges on educators practising DB, which appeared to re-emerge in more popular practice in 1992 with the establishment of the widely published Rural Studio DB program at Auburn University, USA (Carpenter, 1997). Shortly after, Australia's two longest-running DB programs were established: (1) Design Construct at the University of South Australia, est. 1993 (Morris and Weijers-Coghlan, 2017) and (2) Learning by Making at the University of Tasmania, est. 1994 (Wallis, 2005).

Despite the emergence of DB programs globally, such as those in Australia, the USA dominated publications until 2013 (Figure 4). Whether these publications were a driver or consequence of increasing DB activity is unclear; however, they cover a period of rapid growth not only in DB publication but the prevalence of DB in practice. This is evidenced by the comparison of Rhodes' (2017) identification of 100 of 127 accredited USA schools of architecture running DB programs in 2017, while less than 10 were identified 20 years prior (Carpenter, 1997). Notably, much of the early literature references the work of Auburn University's Rural Studio (Carpenter, 1997, 2011; Del Real, 2009; Freear et al., 2014; Kroiz, 2012,; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002, 2005; Pearson, 2002; Trechsel and Moos, 2003). In fact, four of the nine books addressing DB education published between 1997 and 2014 are dedicated to the work of Rural Studio, with another four making significant reference to the program.

More recently, since 2013, non-USA publications have annually outnumbered those of USA origin, representing a global expansion of DB literature. This is supported by figures representing the presence of DB programs. Wallis (2005) identified 59 DB programs globally in 2002 compared with 173 which were identified as part of this study. Subtracting the USA DB programs from these figures leaves an international comparison of 23 programs in 2002 to 88 programs in 2025. It should be noted that while these figures suggest an upward trend in the number of DB programs, they represent cumulative data. The current study has included all historical instances of published DB activity, which represent a unique program and may include inactive programs due to the difficulty finding information about the current status of programs. The literature demonstrates the diversity of countries practising or researching DB, with a total of 39 countries identified as the country of origin in the 253 references gathered in this review.

Regarding an Australian position, there were few publications collected (T = 9), with only 1 identified prior to 2017. This demonstrates an under-representation of over 30 years of continued practice in this area and an opportunity to contribute further research to an Australian perspective (Smith et al., 2022) of DB education from 1993.

A historical perspective is consequential in approaching a definition of DB in architecture. The role of an architect as we know it today is far removed from its etymological origin of “master builder” (Carpenter, 1997; Kraus, 2017). The profession of the architect is distinctly separate from and guides the work of the builder. This role can be credited as a product of the Renaissance (Carpenter, 1997; Mesa et al., 2023), when access to paper and pencils advanced the development of construction drawings (Pacey, 2007). This technological change precipitated a stratification of the workforce and educational models, reflected in the way architects distinguished their role as separate from the builder. Before this, an architect was, in simple terms, a gentleman who practised architecture (Worsley, 1994) or a builder who'd risen to the status of a master, capable of guiding the work in the absence of detailed construction drawings. In line with a contemporary image of the architect, architectural education has been primarily focused on providing the theoretical knowledge required to design buildings, produce construction drawings and oversee their construction or, in the words of Robin Evans (1997):

The physical act of building has not been the architect's job, nor has it been considered a key component of architectural education in most institutions (Carpenter, 1997), which is  possibly a reflection of the architectural profession wanting to distance themselves from builders to be accepted by universities. However, challenges to this prevailing approach have persisted, notably in the Bauhaus in the 1920s (Carpenter et al., 2023; Salama, 2015), Black Mountain College in the 1930s (Bader and Lepik, 2020) and occasional full-scale student building activities by Buckminster Fuller at Yale (Hayes, 2007) and Harwell Hamilton Harris at the University of Texas in the 1950s (Carpenter, 1997). Despite such initiatives, the distinction and division between the work of the designer and the builder in architectural education remained largely unchanged up until the late 1960s (Hailey, 2016). A turning point occurred at Yale in 1967, when Charles Moore facilitated hands-on construction as part of the architecture curriculum (Hayes, 2007; Stonorov, 2018). This approach was based on the concept that the act of building could be a tool for learning about architectural design. While this approach was not new, an appetite for an alternative pedagogy was consistent with the social revolution at the time, which challenged traditional ideas of society, urbanism and architecture, questioning the role of the architect and broader social responsibility of the profession (Hayes, 2007; Salama, 2015). Moore may have been in the right time to implement an approach that could make a social statement, draw on a pre-Renaissance nostalgia of the profession and provide an alternative, possibly improved, architectural education experience. In Hailey's (2016) account of the Yestermorrow DB program established in 1990, John Ringel poses the educational benefit of building, stating that “knowing how to build improves design, and knowing how to design improves build”. While a long history of DB activity has been acknowledged in various guises, Moore's activity aligns with the emergence of a sustained model of architectural education, which has steadily grown and come to be defined as DB. DB is still a growing trend in North America (Carpenter et al., 2023), holding a place in a number of USA universities. However, elsewhere in the global context, despite “explosive growth” in recent years (Cordua and Sandness, 2023), DB lacks a consistent foothold in architectural education.

A number of terms have been used interchangeably to describe DB educational activities, including live projects, experiential learning, 1:1 projects, social design, community design and public interest design. Some of these terms, such as live projects (referred to as community design in the 1990s) are more general and have become umbrella terms under which DB is a subcategory (Figure 1) (Delport, 2016; Kraus, 2017; Smith et al., 2022). Since DB first appeared in an architectural education context in 1971 (Bader and Lepik, 2020) at Goddard College, USA, terminology has changed with shifts in language, social climate and academic agendas. However, with a significant increase in publications examining this educational model (Anderson, 2021; Bader and Lepik, 2020; Smith et al., 2022; Winterbottom, 2020), the DB label is being more frequently applied and generally accepted, whether it be written as DB (Winterbottom, 2020), design/build (Hailey, 2016), designbuild (Kraus, 2017) or DesignBuild (Bader and Lepik, 2020).

The definition of what specifically constitutes DB education is debatable and lacks consensus (Hughes et al., 2019; Kraus, 2017). Bader and Lepik (2020) point to the absence of a binding definition or clear methodology of DB, noting the nascency of theoretical classifications in DB education (Erdman et al., 2002). Consistent with DB definitions, is the requirement that students engage in a process which combines both designing and building (Bader and Lepik, 2020; Stonorov, 2018). This aligns, in principle, with DB as it is known in the commercial construction industry, where one party delivers both the conceptual design and physical execution of the building work (Bader and Lepik, 2020; Kraus, 2017). Breaking DB into its two parts (design and build) helps understand any contention of the definition. Design is the foundation of architectural education, and the design studio is a well-defined and accepted pedagogical model (Burke, 2015; Salama, 2015; Wallis et al., 2010). Building is less clearly defined in architectural education. Often, this refers to a full-scale building, but the term has been applied to various outcomes including scaled models and prototypes, which is where the definition becomes more contentious.

This is evidenced in the criteria for the DB Award offered by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), which honours “best practices in school-based DB projects”. It should be noted that while being an international association, the ACSA is primarily focused on North American architecture education. The ACSA criteria for the DB Award states:

Core to the ACSA criteria is the learning experience for students and realisation of a project, whereas other definitions of DB also raise more specific conditions which need to be present.

Two of the more comprehensive definitions of DB are provided below:

The first is put forward by DBxchange.com.eu, a global community of practice network for DB. A total of 79 member organisations are registered to the network, based in Europe (43), North America (29), Africa (3) and Asia (3). DBxchange (https://www.dbxchange.eu/page/about, accessed 9 October 2024) states that:

DB Projects are components of higher education in the field of built environment that allow students to be physically involved in the materialisation of their designs.

DB Projects must:

1. Be based in higher education;

2. Have a brief, budget and timeframe;

3. Have a client;

4. Be built;

5. Have students involved in the design and construction of the project and

6. Be of architectural, social, cultural, scientific, technical or artistic relevance.

The second definition is based on Anderson and Priest's definition (in Harris and Widder, 2014) of the umbrella term of live projects, which requires a:

1. Brief,

2. Timescale,

3. Budget,

4. Product between an educational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit and

5. The project must be structured to ensure that students gain learning that is relevant to their educational development.

Perold and Delport (in Costandius and Botes, 2018) argue that a DB project, in turn, is a specific type of live project that has:

1. A built structure as an outcome.

Consistent language is clearly emerging in the definition of DB educational projects, which supports critical comparative studies and research into DB. However, what constitutes a built structure or being built is still unclear, as demonstrated by the ACSA criteria, which accepts projects at any scale, including, but not limited to, products, installations, interiors and full-scale constructions. A client or external collaborator is not part of the ACSA criteria and highlights where the umbrella term of live projects may not fit with particular DB projects. Different educators will naturally bring varying values and preferences to built outcomes, and this is where contention remains in the definition of DB.

Delport (2016) presents a classification of DB which accommodates a wide range of built outcomes or “full-scale investigations”, which include experimental, prototypical, inhabitable, generative, explorative and programmatic. These outcomes leave much room for interpretation and invite DB to be broadly applied.

It is noteworthy that none of the definitions above require an individual student to engage in both design and building. It is only stated that students must be involved in both stages. It should therefore be considered that there will be instances where the personal student experience of DB may be one of only design work or building work within a larger DB project. This interrogation of the student experience receives little attention in the available literature and warrants further research.

Literature in DB education in architecture has traditionally resisted theorising or academic critique (Burnham and Wallis, 2017; Erdman et al., 2002) in favour of case studies presenting the process and outcome of DB projects. Salama (2015) calls for further research into the pedagogical value, notably the challenges and opportunities of DB programs, which is echoed by Delport (2016), Harriss and Widder (2014) and Cordua and Sandness (2023), whose work aims to address the lack of consistent reporting of clear pedagogical intentions and practices of DB education. Anderson (2021) notes the historically limited field of literature to draw on for critical comparative studies, which, in conjunction with a lack of consistent language or terminology to do so, perpetuates the case study narrative, whereby DB educators present valid, though academically arbitrary accounts of their practice. However, there has been a recognised surge in both the practice (Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Harriss and Widder, 2014; Hinson, 2007; Salama, 2015) and research (Anderson, 2021; Mesa et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2022) in DB. Drawing together emerging threads will support the development of a common language or framework to more critically and consistently compare and analyse the research emerging from this practice (Harriss and Widder, 2014). In response to this, the authors have identified critically relevant themes recurring in the DB literature, which are discussed in part 7.

More consistent and coordinated research in this field will enhance our understanding of the impact of DB on architectural education and the potential to critically examine the educational benefits extolled by DB educators. DB is often praised for forging practice-ready graduates and filling “a growing gap between architectural education and architectural practice in terms of real-world concerns” (Saxena and Arora, 2015), yet research to verify such statements is scarce (Harriss and Widder, 2014). Despite a recent growth in DB, the need for theoretical development (Delport, 2016) and better understanding of this practice is pressing, given current trends in higher education which challenge the sustainability of DB models. These include rationalisations and the massification of higher education (Wallis et al., 2017), which reduce opportunity for practical, face-to-face classes. In conjunction, Stonorov (2018) warns that physical making is under threat in many academic settings dominated by digital screens. Additionally, the academisation of teachers, which often privileges research and administration skills over practice, risks propagating a model of architectural education increasingly distanced from practice (Cordua and Sandness, 2023). Samuel Mockbee and D.K. Ruth foresaw the shift of architectural education becoming “more about academics and less about construction” (Oppenheimer Dean, 2002) in the early 1990s, and the Rural Studio DB program represented their resistance to this notion.

There is a notable irony when research and evaluation are the necessary tools to validate a practice-based teaching method threatened by an overly academised and rationalised educational landscape. However, it may be in counterpoint to an education increasingly distanced from practice that the value and desire for DB experiences is greatest, which may explain the recent surge in DB practice noted above.

The analysis of the literature search suggests a rapid expansion of DB publications in the last 20 years and also the number of programs undertaking this practice. Whether this is a re-emergence or maturation of alternative pedagogies of the 1960s and 1970s (Salama, 2015) or just an illumination of what has always been happening requires further research to ascertain. Evidence suggests that DB has persisted in some form in architectural education over the past century, but the scarcity of historical references within this study challenges any conclusions we may draw on the extent of DB activities that have occurred in the past. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. A number of factors might help explain this and posit that increased evidence of DB in architectural education does not necessarily represent an equivalent increase in activity.

The prevalence of academic publication, combined with digital records, is capturing much more evidence of academic activity, especially one-off instances of DB projects that are not part of an ongoing program. Unless captured in a publication or maintained in an online repository, there is no lasting record.

A resistance to promote or publish DB activity in architectural education may have existed due to the tension between architecture's desire to maintain academic acceptance as a profession and shake off the ghosts of a technical or vocational past. Persistence of this tension may influence continued development or use of terminology of more generalised terms such as live projects or service learning, which aid categorisation within academic literature without reference to technical or vocational domains such as building or construction. Conversely, skewing perceptions, DB- related terminology may provide differentiation and prove attractive for marketing purposes in some academic landscapes.

With changes in language and terminology comes a challenge to make long-term comparisons. A more detailed study of the history of DB in architectural education would require further examination of the developments in terminology over time to capture the full representation of this type of teaching method in architectural education.

Lastly, the exclusion of a small number of non-English texts that appeared in the database search results presents the inevitable limitation of an English language search. The broad range of countries represented in the current literature suggests there are likely to be many more non-English publications not represented in this review.

Due to the recent increase in publications critically examining DB education in the growing international context, a substantive sample of academic literature now exists from which to draw recurring themes. Most journal publications, due to their word limitations, are generally brief. However, books and reports are typically able to provide broader analysis or evaluation of DB activities, either as multiple case studies or comparisons of programs. Acknowledging that not all literature need be weighted equally (Pickering and Byrne, 2014), books were subsequently selected to undertake a qualitative content analysis, whereby evidence relating to recurrent topics was collected and categorised (Julien, 2008), establishing eight themes. These themes provide a basis for future research into specific aspects of DB and support critical comparison and evaluation of DB education models. These themes reiterate and build on Delport's (2016) axial coding of DB literature, which revealed five broad categories: organisational aspects, academic aspects, project typology, practice impact and possibilities and social impact and possibilities. This review makes the distinction between themes, which are fundamental imperatives of DB programs (i.e. necessary elements to describe the underpinning methods and approach) and those which are organisational (i.e. the practical elements of DB delivery). Some themes were identified prior to the analysis and others emerged from the process. Table 2 lists all books collected in the review process relevant to DB architecture education. A shortlist of 11 books (highlighted) was selected based on (1) number of citations, (2) access/availability and (3) uniqueness, noting that a number of books focus on the work of Rural Studio. Selection by citations inherently favours older publications, so newer publications <5 years were also assessed based on relevance to the specific terms of DB, education and architecture.

Table 3 below represents the qualitative content analysis which mapped eight main themes across the texts highlighted in Table 2. Themes were developed over three stages:

1. Initial themes emerged during early stages of the literature review;

2. Themes were refined and added to through discussion amongst authors, drawing on personal DB experiences and

3. Themes were checked against key literature to identify their recurrence and related terminology (see Table 3).

The discussion of themes presented here is preliminary in its nature and scope. It is acknowledged that a qualitative analysis includes inherent bias, and further discussion and research are recommended to explore the prevalence of the established themes in the broader literature and test their value as a basis for comparative evaluation of DB education models. The purpose was to assess whether these eight themes were robust and adequately encompassed the variety of activities discussed in the literature and contribute towards building a framework to describe and define different DB models in architecture education.

Chi (2002) calls for critical discussion of the relevance of DB, drawing attention to the diversity of DB pursuits with equally varied architectural and pedagogical agendas. Despite the multitude of agendas motivating DB, which have expanded since Chi's observations, the underlying or primary agenda of DB education in architecture is to provide education in design and construction (Hayes, 2007). This is supported by the frequency of references to education and pedagogy in Table 3. Secondary to this are what Chi refers to, which might best be considered sub-agendas, which are likely to be as idiosyncratic as the educators involved. A broad classification of agendas as evidenced in the literature establishes four areas under which these sub-agendas can sit:

1. Community service (Bader and Lepik, 2020; Carpenter, 1997; Carpenter et al., 2023; Harriss and Widder, 2014; Mesa et al., 2023; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002; Pearson, 2002; Rhodes, 2017);

2. Craft (Carpenter 1997; Carpenter et al., 2023; Mesa et al., 2023);

3. Research (Carpenter, 1997, Carpenter et al., 2023) and

4. Pedagogy, as it relates to a program's emphasis on methods or outcome of student learning (Carpenter et al., 2023; Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Hayes, 2007; Hughes et al., 2019; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002).

The broader pedagogy of DB education is a theme that has also been divided into subthemes, which collectively present multiple strategies for DB education. Each of the subthemes addresses topics which have emerged in the literature as critical to investigate student learning as well as the comparison and understanding of the pedagogical approaches DB educators employ or operate within. These include:

1. Relationship of DBto curriculum (Carpenter, 1997; Carpenter et al., 2023; Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Gjertson, 2011; Hailey, 2016; Hayes, 2007; Hughes et al., 2019; Kroll et al., 2022; Bader and Lepik, 2020; Pearson, 2002; Stonorov, 2018);

2. Class size and management (Carpenter, 1997; Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Gjertson, 2011; Hayes, 2007; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002; Pearson, 2002);

3. Program structure (Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Hailey, 2016; Hayes, 2007; Hughes et al., 2019; Pearson, 2002) and

4. Assessment model (Burnham and Wallis, 2017; Carpenter et al., 2023; Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Gjertson, 2011; Hughes, 2022; Pearson, 2002).

Student experiences are multi-faceted, project-dependent and may be focused on technical or social aspects (Gjertson, 2011; Hayes, 2007; Mesa et al., 2023). Much is reported on student enjoyment or preference for hands-on learning but there remains scope to explore the relationship of such reports to evidenced learning outcomes. Burnham and Wallis (2017) use the theory of threshold concepts to suggest DB can provide transformative educational experiences for students and note the role of the student's own reflections to demonstrate this. Steve Badanes points out that it might take some time for students to fully understand the value of their experience (Pearson, 2002). Similarly, Bader and Lepik (2020) suggest that longer-term effects for students of DB are not always clearly evident, implying there should be longitudinal evaluations of DB learning experiences.

DB is, by nature, centred on built artefacts, which can typically be categorised by three project types: residential, small-scale public amenities and experimental. Residential work is central to the mission of some well-established DB programs such as Studio 804 (Pearson, 2002) or Rural Studio's $20 K house program (Freear in Kraus, 2017, p. 24) and may also generate saleable assets which establish a cycle of funding for future DB projects (Passarelli and Mouton, 2021). Small residential projects are also an attractive option due to USA regulations allowing approvals to be attained by unlicensed practitioners in some states (Carpenter et al., 2023). Similar regulatory freedoms extend appeal to building small-scale public amenities, which also help universities demonstrate social capital. Small projects have the practical benefit of facilitating design and construction within a semester, demonstrated by Tulane's School of Architecture (Carpenter et al., 2023) and the University of Washington's Howard S Wright Design/Build Studio (Pearson, 2002). Experimental projects may focus on engagement with emerging technologies (Hughes et al., 2019), support industry partnerships and test the viability of innovations in architecture and building (Carpenter et al., 2023).

Program leadership receives significant attention in DB literature and covers the role of individual leaders, number of staff, their employment type, leadership models, influence on project outcomes and staff challenges. The identity and success of programs resting with (often solo) individuals is a recurring point of discussion (Bader and Lepik, 2020; Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Gjertson, 2011, in Carpenter et al., 2023; Hughes et al., 2019; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002, 2005). Leadership plays an important role in student agency, where varying levels of influence and oversight can impact perceptions of authorship (Carpenter, 1997; Hayes, 2007; Oppenheimer Dean, 2002). A lack of clear systematic approaches to DB is noted (Bader and Lepik, 2020) and some models of shared leadership are offered (Carpenter et al., 2023; Gjertson, 2011; Hughes et al., 2019; Pearson, 2002) as alternatives to the prevailing “lone ranger” approach (Gjertson, 2011).

Information regarding funding and facilities is scarce, yet important to understanding how and where DB programs logistically operate. Pearson's (2002) report on USA DB programs provided comparable funding information across four programs, and research by Gjertson (2011) found the average value of DB projects in the USA was $60,000. More recently, Haily (2016), Rockhill and Sain (2018) and Carpenter et al. (2023) have provided insights into the financial workings of two programs. It is understandable that DB programs eschew the financial details of their activity in favour of celebrating the architectural artefacts and service to the community or for reasons of confidentiality; however, these details can be useful for others embarking on DB projects and present an opportunity for further research.

The significant rise in DB publications suggests the teaching-research nexus in this domain is maturing from a relatively undeveloped position a decade ago, where a lack of scholarly research challenged the value of DB (Gjertson, 2011). Despite this, there is still little in the literature about the way in which research is specifically linked to DB teaching. DB academics may be too time-poor to publish, too busy with projects, outside traditional tenure positions (Gjertson, 2011) and lacking established platforms of DB practice and research (Bader and Lepik, 2020). As an alternative to the narrative-style project review, which dominates the research, Carpenter et al. (2023) discuss how staff can identify research opportunities at the start of a project using a pre-project questionnaire.

There are many facets of risk in DB education, evidenced by the variety of contexts in which it is presented in the literature. Risk is referred to in relation to work health and safety (Cordua and Sandness, 2023), risk management skills (Cordua and Sandness, 2023; Harriss, 2015), responsibilities (Rhodes, 2017), liability (Mesa et al., 2023), reputation (Hughes et al., 2019) and student learning through risk (Hughes et al., 2019, in Carpenter et al., 2023; Rhodes et al., 2021). Risk is ever present, often given brief acknowledgement but rarely discussed in detail. DB projects are high-risk activities, and the multitude of risks presented challenge both the establishment of new programs and the continuation of those well-established. It is therefore not necessarily the prevalence of risk in the literature but the need to understand and manage the range of risks in DB that warrants it as a topic for further research and inclusion as a theme in this review.

The results from the mixed methods of literature searches in this study demonstrate that the scale of research in the field of DB education in architecture has grown significantly over the last decade and the number and diversity of publications warrant a combination of search methods to capture a substantive sample of the literature. Specifically, database searches alone are unlikely to be sufficient. A quantitative review of the search results identified a shift from a North American-dominated field of research to a much more globalised perspective, representing literature originating from 39 countries, compared to only 15 represented in 2015. Regardless of the many factors which may influence the increased number of research outputs, it is clear that DB is increasing as a globally recognised pedagogy in architectural education.

A qualitative review of the literature noted that clearer delineations and definitions of surrounding, overlapping or overarching fields of research are emerging. However, the terminology in this area is still inconsistent, and DB research should consider relevant references that may not fall under the specific term of DB. The lack of consistent terminology in DB research emerged as a consistent theme in the literature, and publications, professional bodies and networks of practice have taken steps in recent years towards identifying a common definition of DB. Although still not universally agreed upon, evidenced by the broad activity falling under building and the lack of discussion on whether a single student needs to undertake both design and build activities, there is more consistent terminology and a clearer definition emerging of DB practice and research.

With the aim of drawing nearer to an agreed definition and consistent terminology, this research undertook a thematic review of a representative sample of the literature, selecting 11 books published in the field. This approach focused on a small number of in-depth publications, rather than a meta-analysis of all publications. The book review examined recurring terminology in the literature, which was classified into eight themes. Three themes were consistently addressed in the review and generally attracted greater attention. These could be considered fundamental imperatives of any DB program and include agenda, pedagogy and student experience. The remaining five themes of project type, staffing and leadership, facilities and funding, teaching research nexus and risk were less consistently represented and could be considered as what Delport (2016) refers to as organisational aspects, which illustrate the operation of DB programs and carry varying degrees of relevance depending on the program.

It is suggested that the three themes of agenda, pedagogy and student experience provide a frame of reference for comparative research, which can move closer to a unifying definition of DB and assist in better understanding the DB approach in architectural education and the role it can play in preparing students for real-world practice.