ADR for a built environment interdiscipline: curriculum and practical applications

Abstract

PurposeThis paper's central purpose is to demonstrate that facilitative alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes can assist in the development of a built environment interdiscipline, and that a built environment interdiscipline should include an ADR course in its curriculum.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a brief summary of two empirical studies conducted at the University of Western Australia Law School which investigated the relationship between the teaching of ADR and student engagement.FindingsThe research findings show that teaching ADR in an interactive and experiential manner can increase the students' sense of belonging to the school in which it is taught, and simultaneously can contribute to the students acquiring constructive conflict resolution skills.Research limitations/implicationsThe quantitative data derives from only one school in a university and subsequently, there was a lack of a control group. Yet, the sample size was sufficient for a reasonable analysis of the data and provides a base from which further studies in this field can occur.Practical implicationsThe paper provides ideas on how to structure an ADR course within a built environment curriculum and to present ADR material in a manner that enhances student learning and engagement. In addition, the paper provides evidence of how ADR processes offer a mechanism for facilitating engagement with a common axiomatic for the built environment field and also provide a link to that axiomatic.Originality/valueThe paper provides an original analysis of the role of ADR in the built environment curriculum and strengthens the analysis by providing original research on the links between ADR education and student engagement.

Simulated Learning Environments as an Interdisciplinary Option for Vocational Training: A Systematic Review

“…Besides the above, it is pertinent to consider the tension which currently exists between the didactic convenience of interdisciplinarity for university education and the difficulties inherent in its own complexity, which hampers implementing it properly (Chynoweth, 2009; Graff, 2016; Howieson, 2011). In this sense, an approach which is still considered to be legitimate for the management of knowledge in a compartmentalized manner for purposes of teaching, reaffirms the artificial existence of “borders” that separate knowledge, without recognizing with it that in professional practice, such a separation is non-existent and by far, very inconvenient (Shaw, 2022).…”