Emotion and Experience

Emotion and Experience The Meaning and Experience of Shared Housing: Companionship. Security and ... A Home1 Carole Després Ecole d'architecture Université Laval

Abstract This paper summarÏzes the results of a doctoral study of the form, meaning and experience of home in shared housing. The research design consisted of face-to-face interviews with a nonprobability sample of70 homesharers. The findings indicate that homesharers agree with the meanings of home defmed in the context of more traditional households and housing situations and that their ideal homes do not differ much from those of people living in more conventional housing arrangements. The &ustration of not filling-at-home in shared housing is not experienced to a significant degree. In fact, instead of restricting the experience of home, the presence of unrelated adults often reinforces it. Overall, respondents find in shared housing the extra psychological, physical and financial security they need as weIl as the company they want at that point in their lives. The analysis of respondents' discourses also indicated that the experience of home is not exclusively related to human and behavioral factors, but also to the physical properties ofhousing and to broader social issues.

Introduction There is a growing concern in both academic publications and popular press for innovative housing for singles and singleparents The recent publications of New housing, New househo/ds by Franck & Ahrentzen (1989) and of CoHousing by McCamant & Durret (1988) are exemplary instances of this new awareness. Among. the new housing forms that are being promoted are cohousing, originally developed in Denmark and Holland, and shared housingwhich has a much longer American tradition (see Franck, 1989, 1987). Shared housing was a widespread and socially acceptable housing choice at different stages of a family's 1ife until the 1930s. Boarders, servants, apprentices, grand-parents, aunts, uncles even the poor, the homeless and the mentally disabled were common household members (Kobrin, 1978; Modell & Hareven, 1978). The suburban ideology and the ideology of the nuclear family, among others, tended to exclude these other members from the households. In fact, since the 1950s, shared housing is commonly understood as a typical residential arrangement for coIlege students. However, the rapid increase of one-adult household -

singles and single-parents- with limited annual income, along with high interest rates and housing costs for both homeowners and renters, have revived discussion on the appropriateness of shared housing. Even though it is being promoted, we know very little about shared housing in North America. The purpose of this study is precisely to increase our general knowledge of this form of residential arrangement. Shared housing is defined as the sharing of

a one-kitchm dwelüng unit by two or motr untrlated adu/ts who are not emotiona/ly invo/ved, and who may or may not have chi/drm living with them. The way this study was approached is an attempt to go beyond residential satisfaction studies and/or housing preferences studies which, 1 believe, are not sufficient to grasp the bouse/home transaction. The perspective adopted builds upon meaning and experience of home studies. Since Clare Cooper Marcus published her article Housing Ils symbo/ ofthe se/fin 1974 and Godfrey Hayward, Home Ils a psycho/ogica/ concept in 1977, the number of studies about the meaning of home has steadily increased. Researchers are concerned with how and why housing is invested with meaning as weIl as with the content of these meanings. In a review of the mainstream empiricalliterature on the meaning of home published between 1974 and 1989,1 indicate that one of the biases of these studies consists of their tendency to interpret the meanings and experiences of home &om the perspective of residents' personal characteristics, psychological needs and life experiences, neglecting the active role played by societal mechanisms and by the built environment itself (Després, 1991). 1 propose that an interpretative theory ofhome should include an understanding of home, first as amaterial entity, which corresponds to its structural formal properties; second, as a perceived and experienced reality; and third, as a societal entity influenced by political and economic factors as weIl as by cultural norms and ideologies. It is on the basis of recent integrative theoretical modelsl proposed by social theorists and implemented byenvironmental researchers that the conceptual &amework of this research was developed (for a detailed revÏew, see Després, 1989). It proposes that the meaning of home in shared housing is the result of the interplay between individual thoughts and actions, societal mechanisms, and the built environment itself. These different sets of forces ace together in people's everyday lives in the production, reproduction and transformation of environmental meaning and aperience. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical mode! adopted for the study. The general questions this study attempted to answer in relationship to the above conceptual &amework are: (1) what is the range of people living in shared housing and what are their reasons for sharing their homes, (2) in what types of dwellings does shared housing occur, and (3) what does home means for homesharers and how does it match their experience of shared housing? More specific questions are listed on Figure 2.

Papers and Paper Abstracts • 119

INDIVIDUAL 1HOUGlITS, ACI10NSAND SOCIO-DEMOGRAPmC CHARACI'ERISTICS

MICROSCOPIC LEVEL OF ANALYSIS MACROSCOPIC LEVELOF ANALYSIS

MEANING HOUSING AS BUILT ENVIRONMENf

HOME IDEOLOGIES, CULTURAL NORMS, HOUSING POUCIES

Figure 1 - Conceptual model for the study of the meaning of home

•

WHAT IS THE RANGE OF PEOPLE UVING IN SHARED HOUSING?

• What are their sociodemographic characteristics,life style and values, past residential experiences and future housing aspirations, as weIl as housing p-eferences? • What types of interactions do they have with their homemate(s) in their dwellings? In which rooms? WHAT ARE THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE SHARE A HOME?

• For how long is one willing to share a home? • What advantages and disadvantages do homesharers see to shared housing • With whom are they most willing to share their home with? Which rooms? IN WHAT TYPE OF DWELUNGS DOES SHARED HOUSING OCCUR?

• Where are shared dwellings located? What are their formal characters? • Do certain dwelling layouts better accommodate shared bousing than others? • What housing exteriors are appropriate images for shared housing? WHAT DOES HOME MEAN TO HOMESHARERS AND HOW DO ES IT MATCH THEIR EXPERIENCE OF SHARED HOUSING?

• What are the human factors that influence most people's experience of home in shared housing? • Which formaI characters of different housing types and dwelling unit layouts enhance or prevent the feeling of being-at-home in shared housing? • What legal, economic or politicai factors affecting people's experience of being-at-home in shared housing?

Figure 2 - General and specifie research questions regarding shared housing

120 • EDRA 24 Proceedings • 1993

Research Strategy and Methodology The research design consisted of a cross-sectional survey of a purposive sample of70 people living in shared housing.' Interviews of approximately one and a half hours were conducted in their homes. The methodology developed for the research attempted to go bryand the exclusive US~ ofquantitative !lI. qUillitative data collection and analysis instrummts by putting the two research traditions in a dialectical relationship. The research strategy combined quantitative instruments From cognitive psychology and qualitative research procedures. These two types of research methods were not used separatelyor sequentially but rather put in an interdependent relationship. In other words, the final set of data would not have been possible without combining the instruments (for a more detailed discussion on the methodology, see Després, 1993). The data were gathered From respondents' verbal and written answers From the interviews and the self-administered questionnaires, and From the mapping of their dwellings. Three cognitive tasks were used to provide quantitative indicators ofsample trends but also as means to generate open-ended comments on very focused issues: (1) a rating task ofl4 meaning of home statements; (2) pair~d comparisons of 17 floor plans of dwellings; (3) a sorting task of 20 housing exteriors. During the ~aning of hom~ task, respondents rated on seven-point scales their degree of agreement with 14 statements made up From meanings of home identified in the existing hu-

manlbehavioralliterature. They rated their degree of agreement with the statements on two different levels: (1) in relationship with their ideal home; (2) in relationship with their current or past shared home. After each rating, respondents were asked why their ratings were so similar or different and their comments were recorded by the interviewer. For the spatialpreformc~s task, respondents were shown 14 pairs of drawings representing 17 different floor plans of two-, three- and four-bedrooms dwellings in a given sequence. For each pair shown, they were asked to select the layout that would be most appropriate for them in shared housing and to state their reasons for preferring one layout to the other. Finally, the visUll/ Prif~c~ task consisted of asking respondents to classifjr 20 black and white drawings of housing exteriors according to a criterion of their choice, to rank the dwellings withln each pile by order of preference, and to select the most desirable for them to live. Each of the cognitive tasks generated informal but very focused discussions on different aspects of shared housing. Because people were concentrated on the tasks, they were less apt to try to answer what they thought the interviewer wanted to hear. Moreover, during long interviews, the cognitive tasks kept homesharers' interest high by having them play a very active role in manipulating written and visual material. The last part of the interview was used by respondents to complete a self-administered questionnaire during which rime the interviewer drew the floor plan of their dwellings. The research instruments are listed on Figure 3.

INSTRUMENTS

PURPOSE

• RATINGTASKOF 14 STATEMENfS ABOUT THE MEANING OF HOME

• Meaning and experience of home for homesharers

• PAIRED COMPARISONS OF 17 FLOOR PLANS

• Homesharers' preferences for different spatial organization of dwellings to share

• SORTING TASK OF 20 HOUSING EXTERlORS

• Homesharers' preferences for different housing exteriors

• SElF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE

Homesharers' sociodemographic and shared household characteristics • Homesharers'lifestyles and values • Homesharers' past residential experiences and future housing aspirations Homesharers' preferences for homemate(s) • Pros and Cc;ms of shared housing

• MAPPING OF RESPONDENfS' DWEllJNGS

• Physical characters of dwellings used for shared housing

Figure 3 -Research instruments used for the study

Papers and Paper Abstracls • 121

The Meaning and Experience of Home in Shared Housing4 As a general rule, homesharers did agree about the meanings of home defined in the context of more traditional households and housing situations. Their ideal homes were not that different from those of people living in more conventional housing arrangements. A good number of young adults expected to get married, to have children, and/or to buy a house at sorne point in the future; many single-parents wished to reconstitute a family in the future; and widows lived in memories of a home that had been lost at the death of their spouse and/or departure of children. Even though their shared homes differed from their ideal schemes, their experiences were rather positive. The frustration of not feeling-at-home in shared housing was not experienced to a significant degree. In fact, instead of restricting the feeling ofbeing-at-home, the presence of unrelated adults often reinforced it. Overall, respondents had found in shared housing the extra psychological, physical and financial security they needed as well as the company they wanted at that point in their lives. The comments made by homesharers to interpret the similarity or dissimilarity between their ratings of the 14 meanings of home in relationship to first, their ideal homes and second, their shared housing situations were not exclusively related to factors specific to shared housing and unrelated households; ramer they also related to their personal characteristics and residential history, to the physical properties of their dwellings and to broader social issues. The subsequent sections present the different factors influencing people's experience of home in shared housing according to the conceptual framework developed for the study, that is, human/behavioral, physical and societal factors.

Human/Behavioral Factors Homesharers in the sample were either never married young adults, divorcedl separated middle-aged people and, even though less numerous in our sample, widowed persons. Despite the fact that the majority of respondents were living in childless households, there were enough single-parents in the sample to indicate that it cao also answer their housing needs. Homesharers typically had low to moderate income, were highly educated, valued work, friendship, and leisure travel, and described themselves as rather experimental or liberal as opposed to conventional and conservative. They were raised in single-family detached houses and a good proportion of them expected to be living in such houses one day with a spouse and possibly children. The main reason to first decide to share a home was primarily economic, with a desire for companionship as a second motivation. Once experienced, however, shared housing was more valued for its social than economic benefits. As a general rule, the presence of unrelated adults in the household did not prevent the feeling of being-at-home to develop. On the contrary, it often enhanced the experience ofhome.


Their experiences of shared housing was related, among others, to the kind of relationships they had with their homemates, their marital status, their gender, and to the fact that they had or not children living with them. Overall, people who had afamily-like or friendly relationship with their homemates had a more positive experience of shared housing then those who had a tenant! landlord relationship. One divorced women stated: "Whm 1 moved ben, 1 found a irai fami/y. ~ ail care and cry for e«h other." Another younger women reported: "My Irlationship with

my hommuzte is DM ofgoodftimdship. It is not lilte a family. This is what my parmts' home WIlS or what it will be whm 1gd 1nIl1'ried and have chi/drm. But 1 mjoy our goodftinulship a !Dt." The stage in life cycle, personallifi: events, personalities and values, and past residences also influenced homesharers' experiences of shared housing. Women were more positive than men about shared housing, so were never married and widowed respondents compared to divorced or separated ones, and singles compared ta single-parents. Rdated to personallifi: events, the meaning of home Ils rootedness was often questioned by homesharers going through transitions or crises in their lives. A divorced woman, stated: "1 WIlS TOOtedfor 25 yeaTS ID a bouse and

a lifi 1 got to hate. 1 newr want ID fiel TOOted that WIly again." Rather related ta the stage in life cycle, a young professional homesharer indicated: "1 mjoy the nomadic lifestyle ofshaml housing. It al/ows me to expmmce living in diff~ mvironments and with varWus people so 1 get to /mow myselfbater." Differences in lifestyles among homesharers as well as reduced privacy and autonomywithin unrelated household were the two most frequendy mentioned disadvantages of shared housing. However, many ho~h:uers. indicated that these problems were typical of any family SItuations and that they preferred to compromise on their autonomy and privacy than to live alone. Interestingly, several meanings of home were often more relevant for homesharers than for people living alone. In fact, ~omes~arers ~ften evaluated their experiences of shared housing ln relaaonship to former experiences of living by themselves. For instance, the meaning of home Ils psychological and physical security for women living alone was brought into question several times, as a comment from one widow indicates: "In fifty yeaTS ofmamage, 1 had newr s/ept one night alDne. When my band died, 1 cou/d not stand the idea ofliving bJ myseif." Similarly, the meaning of home Ils relationship with others or cmter of lDve and togdherness was said to he hard to experience when living alone. For instance, people who had just left the parental home for a first job, a spouse and children after a separation, or had recencly suffered the death of a spouse or the departure of children, said they were more susceptible to experience solitude after these events, as a comment from one divorced women illustrates: "Aft" the divorce, 1 tried living bJ myself 1 WIIS going crazy. (. ..) 1 nmled to fiel someone around me." Also, the meaning of home Ils ".foge for people living alone was said to be sometimes overwhelming as a middle-aged women commented: "1 expmmced living bJ myselffor sevl!ral yeaTS. At fint, il WIIS O.K but in

mu-

the !Dng run, 1filt the need for somebody to ta/k to casuaily about

my day at work and w~~kmd's proj~cts,

som~body

who wou/d be

4ware ofmy existmc~." The three categories of marital status in the sample -never married, separated/divorc.ed, and widowed people- can, in facto he understood as representing three transitional stages in the life cycle: never married people establishing a first home after leaving the parents' residence or college housing, separated/divorc.ed people in transition toward re-establishing a home after leaving a spouse, and widowed people in the midst of re-defining their home after the death of a spouse. The phmommologicaUtkwlopmental model provides insight into people's motivations for shared housing as weIl as how weIl their experiences fit into life goals. Our findings supports the argument that the meaning of home is defined along a temporal process and is constancly adjusted according to people's life events, past residential experiences and future housing aspirations ognoli & Horwitz, 1982; Lawrence, 1983). The establishment and re-establishment of home may be a discontinuous process as studies of unemployed or oIder people (Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 1991), and home-based workers (Ahrentzen, 1987) have also demonstrated. We can hypothesize that the meaning of home is defmed or shaped by the continuities and discontinuities in people's lives, depending of their stage in life cycle as weil as life events. Continuities refer to stable periods in people's life paths while discontinuities refers to breaks and/or unpredictable life events that involve less stability. During one's life, a person will osdllate between continuity and discontinuities due to various drcumstances. In the case of shared housing, the discontinuities are due to either: (1) departure from parents' homes, (2) divorce or separation, or (3) death of a spouse. Each of these events will lead to a re-definition of the home that may or may not be in continuity with the former home.

cr

Physical Factors and the Experimce ofShared Housing Several factors related to housing as a located entity and built form influence people's definition of home and experience of shared housing. In the sample used for this study, shared housing was primarily an urban phenomenon but also occurred in suburbs, small towns and rural areas. The shared dwellings were most often rented flats or owned houses although sorne were rented or owned apartments. They were generally more spadous and had more rooms than standard dwellings and cost less to their occupants than if they were living alone. The findings indicate that the feeling ofbelonging to a neighborhood or a city is stronger than the feeling ofbelonging to a specific dwelling for people in the process of re-establishing their home, corroborating a study by Feldman (1989) on place attachment. The meaning of h_ as status was not found to be a dominant concern for homesharers, in agreement with Baker's et al study (1987) of college-educated Americans. In fact, homesharers' search for higher status neighborhoods was often motivated by a desire to live in safer housing. Our results nevertheless support Duncan, Lindsey & Buchan's (1985) findings that housing exteriors, including maintenance and landscaping,

are important signs of social status, more so than the neighborhood itself. However, the neighborhood came up as determinant in people's evaluation of their physical safety, especially for women. By splitting housing costs with homemate(s), homesharers can afford "better" neighborhood which are often associated with safer neighborhoods. Sharing housing costs also allows homesharers to live in better and larger housing than if they were living by themselves. In fact, the majority of shared dwellings in the sample exœeds FHA minimum square footage standards for comparable numbers of occupants. Housing that projects the image of singlefamily houses or semi-attached houses generally matches people's ideal schemes for a home in terms of exterior appearances. In addition, features that are common to residential projects SUch as volumes articulated by roofs, covered porches, bay-windows and balconies are preferred, as weil as windows that are perceived as residential in size and character. In relationship to resülmtiltl preferences studies, homesharers' preferences for low-density housing and for buildings that are residential in character confirm existing knowledge in this area of research (see Marcus & Sarkissian, 1986). The structural properties of the built form also play a significant role in people's experience of home in shared housing. Good spatial organizations for shared housing allow households members to have privacy from each others and to define territaries in the dwelling. Multiple, distinct and enclosed living spaces help maintain the autonomy ofhomesharers, so do good separations between bedrooms and living spaces, as weil as between bedrooms themselves. Homesharers express more desire for a small priva~ study than a private bathroom. Hal/ways, doors and turn-around spaces are efficient device to increas~ privacy among homesharers and facilitate territorial defmition. Circulation patterns which generate privat~ pathsftom mtranc~ to bedrooms, beJrooms to kitchm, and b~drooms to bathroom{s} facilitate territorial definition and privacy among homesharers. In relationship to the t~itori4/ modelofhome, the capacity for controlling social interaction and defining terri tories is an important variable in the definition of the meaning of home for homesharers (see also Sebha & Churchman, 1986). Urban Bats and houses built before War World II were fOund to be the two housing types that can best adjust to shared housing. In contrast to postwar suburban housing, oIder urban dwelling units were not designed for the modern nuclear family; the presence of boarders and maids was common, as was intergenerational cohabitation. They are generally more spadous with higher degrees of separation between their diffi:rent rooms and more djstinct living spaces, and, as a result, offi:r more potential for territorial definition and privacy among homemates. These physical properties of the oIder urban flats certainly contribute to a positive experience of home in shared housing. On the oontrary, because of their open layouts, suburban ranch houses and garden apartments were generally problematic fOr shared households, especially those who did not have a family-like relationship and needed more privacy among members. These types


of dwellings were specifically designed for nudear families and lack the flexibility to accommodate the needs unrelated households. Figure 4 illustrates the spatial properties of floors plans built before and after 1950. The presence of homesharers' personal possessions and belongings in the dwellings contributes to a positive experience of shared housing. Personal objects and significant material possessions in shared dwellings are fundamental for them to feel at home. These domestic symbols express the continuity between people's past and future as Csikszentrnihalyi & Rochberg-Halton (1981) concluded in their study. As long as· homesharers have their things around them, they can develop a feeling of familiarity with their homes. In relationship to the psycho/ogical modelof home as symbol of the self, differences among homemates in housekeeping standards and in preferences for decoration and fumishing among homesharers can become a real problem. Since the bedroom in shared housing is considered as th~ pl4c~ in the dwelling that most reflects homesharers' identity, large rooms with a lot of storage facilitate personalization.

2'

6'

12'

Societal Factors and the Experience ofShared Housing Most of homesharers' comments that were related to larger social processes had to do with the oost, privileges and meaning of homeownership in relationship to those of tenancy. The absence of economic benefits for tenants compared to the tu: deductions allowed to homeowners is considered unfair. Even though homeownership is not the only form ofinvestment, it is considered the best one in the U.S. Most shared housing arrangements in the sample did not allow peÔple to build up cquity. However, by splitting housing cosl5 with homemate{s), many were able to save money for a down payment to buy a house or condominium. People also have lime control on urban crime rates. The perceived safety of a neighborhood influences the meaning and experience ofhome as shelter. For example, people tend to associate public housing with crime and danger. In several cases, the proximity of one's dwelling to a public housing project had led to triple locks and alarm systems, which in turn were perceived as constant reminders of unsafe neighborhoods. Former burglaries

20'

Urban fiat built before 1950

Ranch house built after 1950

Fi ure 4 -Exam les of dwellin s built before and after 1950 and used for shared hou sin


~ have a negative impact on people's perception of home as

safety. Of course, one alternative is to move out of a city or a neighborhood. However, one has to afford a better location. Sharing housing costs with homemate(s) was frequently a way for homesharers to "afford" safer neighborhoods. Although there was a general awareness among homesharers of regulations existing in several neighborhoods or housing de\'elopments regarding the maximum number of people one can mare a home with, it is in suburban areas and in more exclusive neighborhoods that people were careful about living in "illegal" situations. References to single-family zoning regulations were made by a few respondents living in large single-family detached bouses. They indicated that because neighbors could complain to the city, they were limiting the number of homemates in the bouseholds to two or three, or trying not to attract neighbors' attention. A few respondents living in recencly built rentai housing complexes indicated that they had gone through a real "check up" to rent a dwelling unit, managers being more reluctant to rent to unrelated households than to singles or couples. Finally, building regulations in rentai and condominium housing were resented as major restrictions to personalization. Special clauses on leases prohibiting color paint, wall paper, or pictures on the walls infringe on people's desire for modifying their environment.

Conclusion The feeling of being-at-home can truly be experienced in shared housing. Nevertheless, it is in discontinuities and changes in people's lives that the meaning of home in shared housing takes its roots, homesharers' decisions to live in shared housing being often the results of unpredictable situations or unplanned life events. The findings of this study indicate that people find in shared housing the extra psychological, physical and financial security as well as companionship they need at a certain point in their lives. Although it does not correspond to the traditional American Dream, shared housing is perceived as an intermediate phase toward the establishment or re-establishment of their home. Because of its temporary character, shared housing does not conflictwith people's long-term housing aspirations but rather provides a means of reaching them. Could we hypothesize that at certain stages of the life cycle, and also due to various life ~nts, people are more susceptible to try residential arrangements that do not correspond to the dominant American cultural norms for housing. Do people experiencing discontinuities between their past and future kel a greater need for "others" and are more inclined to communal living? Theses questions remains open. The qualitative analysis of homesharers' discourses about their shared housing situations indicates the need to go beyond interpreting the meaning of home unilaterally with human factors. A real attempt to define more specifically the reasons for which a given housing arrangement is perceived and experienced positively or negatively needs to assess the impact of the built environment and broader social processes on individuals' daily experiences.

The critical role that the spatial properties of dwellings played in the experience ofshared housing suggests that built form analysis be systematically included in home environment studies. To investigate the impact of the built form on the experience and meaning of home, exttrior and spatial prifermce studies should be used in parallel with built form analysis. Computer technologies should be exploited in empirical studies as a device for designing realistic tridimensional simulations more accessible to non-architects and the methods of typomorpho/ogy be given more attention to analyze the objective properties of the built form. Comments from homesharers that were related to societal factors were less numerous than the ones related to physical or humanlbehavioral factors. It seems as if it is harder for people to articulate their thoughts about the political and economic components of housing. The methodologicallimitation facing researchers is similar to the one they have to deal with when investigating the impact of the built form on people's actions and meanings. It is now an accepted fact that it is hard for people to evaluate their physical environment without the help of visual material and this is why this study included two cognitive tasks to help people focus on the physical components of their homes. Similar research instruments should be designed to help people articulate their thoughts about broader social processes or identify semi-conscious levels of discourses about the home as societai entity. In this respect, the potential ofstructural tex:t analysis and multidimensional scaling analysis techniques deserve to be further explored. Moreover, building upon Wohlwill's well-known expression, one could say that "society is not in the head." As for the physical form, societal factors should also have been studied objectively outside of respondents' discourses as it was done for the built form which was analyzed objectively from the floor plans of respondents' dwellings, and, subjectively, through homesharers' comments during two cognitive tasks. The research design was lacking this objective/subjective theoretical triangulation for the analysis of societal factors. This suggests that the conceptual model of the meaning and experience of home originally proposed needs to be further developed. An objective/subjective component should be added to human/behavioral, physical and societal dimensions already identified. This would allow to include, for instance, cultural norms or housing ideologies as the subjective counterparts of housing policies and institutions. Figure 5 suggests a revised model. Finally, multi-discip/inary research team as weil as longitudinal research programs are nmkJ. An integrative approach to the study of hou~ing can hardly be tackled by single individuals. Research collaborations involving experts from several disciplines who could bring their own methodological expertise constitute a more realistic way of undertaking such studies. It is also not rea\istic to suggest that such research programs can be completed within a year or two; a truly holistic approach to home environments implies a diachronic as well as a synchronic perspective on environmental meaning.


SUBJECTIVE DIMENSIONS

OBJECTIVE DIMENSIONS

HUMAN/ BEHAVIORAL FACTORS

PHYSICAL FACTORS

SOCIETAL FACTORS

-Sociodemographic characteristics -Residential history eSpace use and behavior

-Life style and values -Aspirations -Experiences -Meanings

-Housing location -Housing type and characters -Dwelling size, configuration and spatial organization

-Housing preferences -Housing satisfaction

-Housing policies -Tenure mode -Finance and economy -Demographies

-Ideologies -Cultural norms

MICRO-LEVEL OFANALYSIS

MACRO-LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Figure 5 - Revised conceptual model for the study of the meaning and experience of home

Endnotes The results presented are part of a doctoral dissertation conducted at the department of Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This research was made possible through doctoral grants from the Canadian Council for HUm4n Sciences and Université Laval, Québec. For instance, Bourdieu's (1977) and Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration, Markovic's (1984) and Rossi's (1983) dialectical theory, Rochherg-Halton's (1986) theory of cullivation, and Perinbanayagarn's (1985) theory of signifying hum4n conduaall propose mechanisms integrating micro- and macro-social factors in the production and reproduction of human actions and meanings. Two thirds of respondents were women, one third, men. AlI were single (never married, divorcedl separated or widowed). Three quarters of respondents had no children living with them at home, the others were single-parents. One third of respondents were under 30 years old, another third were hetween 30 and 39 years old, while the last third were over


4

40 years old. Nine out of ten had at least sorne coJJege education or had completed a degree in a technical school. Nearly two thirds had annuaJ incomes ofless than $20,000. Over 80 percent were employedfoJJ-time, the rest worked part-time, were retired, or unemployed. Two thirds of participants lived in two-adults households, 20 percent in three- to four-adults households; three quarters lived in childless households, 16 percent in one-child household. Three quarters of the homesharers were renters, the others were homeowners. Three quarters lived in urban neighborhoods, the others in suburbs, small towns or villages. About a third of the dwellings were located in single-farnily detached houses; another third in two- or three-flat houses or small apartment buildings; and the last third in low-rise or small mixed commercial/residential multiplex buildings. Because of the non-probability sarnple of homesharers that were surveyed in this study, the results should he taken as grounded hypotheses that need to he further tested with probability sarnples of larger sizes.

References Ahrentzen, S. (1987) Blurring boundaries : socio-spatia/ cons~ qumc~s of working at home. Research Manuscript, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Baker, M.W., Kramer, E., Gilbert, G. (Dirs) (1987) Th~ Pier 1 Imports study ofth~ ~rican home. New York: Louis Harris & Associates, Study No 871 025. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Out/in~ ofa th~ory ofpractic~. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, C. (1974) The house as symbol of the self. Design and Environmmt. 3(3): 30-37. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981) Th~ ~an ing ofthings: domestic symbols and th~ s~1f, (192-145). New York: Cambridge University Press. Després, C. (1993) The use of a hybrid strategy in a study of shared housing. In. E. G. Arias (ed) Th~ ~aning and us~ of

housing: International p~rsp~ctives, plications, (381-403). Avebury.

approach~s,

and thdr ap-

Després, C. (1991a) The meaning ofhome:literature reviewand directions for future research and theoretical development. In RJ. Lawrence (Ed) The meaning and use of home. Special Issue of Tk Journal ofArchit~ctur~ and PlIlnning Res~arch, 8(2}:96-115. Després, C. (1991h) Th~form, exp~rienc~and~aningofhom~ in shared housing. Doctoral Dissertation. University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee. Després, C. (1989) Beyond theoretical purism: the search for an integrated paradigm in environmental meaning research. In G. Hardie, R Moore & H. Sanoff (Eds) Changing paradigms, (82-87). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research. Washington, D.C.: EDRA. Duncan,J.S., Lindsey, S., & Buchan, R. (1985) Decoding residence: artefacts, social codes and the construction of the self. Espam d sociltls, (47): 29-43. Feldman, R. (1989) Sdtlnnmt-idmtity: psycho/ogica/ bonds with homepillc~s in a mobik society. Paper presented at the International Housing Symposium, Gavle, Sweden, 1989. Franck, K.A., Ahrentzen, S. (eds) (1989) N~ hous~holds, n~ housing. New York: Van NostrandiReinhold. Franck, KA (1989) Overview of collective and shared housing. ln KA Franck & S.B.Ahrentzen (eds) N~ Housing, N~ Households, New York: Van NostrandiReinhold. Franck, KA (1987) Shared spaces, smaIl spaces, and spaces that change: examples ofhousing innovation in the United States. In W. van Vliet, H. Choldin, W.Michelson & D. Popenoe (eds) Housing and n~ighborhoods: theordica/ and ~pirical contributions, (157-172). New York: Greenwood Press.

Giddens, A. (1984) Th~ Constitution ofsociety: outlin~ ofa tkory ofstructu1rltion. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Universoty of California Press. Hayward, J. (1977) Psychological concepts of "home." HUD Chal/mg~, February 1977: 10-13. Kobrin, EE. (1978) The faIl in household size and the rise of the primary individual in the United States. ln M. Gordon (ed) Th~ American Family in Social Historical Persp~ctivt:. New York: St-Martin. LAawrence, RJ. (1986) L~ s~ilftanchi: Iog~t popuillire d vi~ quotidimn~ m Suiss~ romande, 1860-1960. Geneva: Georg. Laawrence, RJ. (1983) Understanding the home environment: spatial and temporal perspective. International Journal of Housing Sci~~ and its Application 7(1}: 13-25. Marcus, c.c., SARKISSIAN, W. (1986) Housing as ifp~opk matter~d. Ca: University of California Press. McCamant, K.M., Durrett, C.R (1988) Co-Housing: a cont~ porary approach to housing ourselves. Habitat Press. Modell, J. Hareven, T.K. (1978) Urbanization and the maIleable household. In M. Gordon (ed) Th~ American hous~hoid in an historica/persp~ctivt:, (51-67). New York: St. Martin. Perinhanayagam, R.S. (1985) Signifying acts: structur~ and ~an ing in everyday lift. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Rochberg-Halton, E. (1986) M~aning and modernity: Social th~ory in tlx pragmatic attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rossi, 1. (1983) From tlx sociology ofsymbols to the sociology of signs: toward a diaiectical sociology. New York: Columbia University Press. Sebha, R., Churchman, A. (1986) The uniqueness of the home. Archit~ctuTt and B~havior, 3(1}: 7-24. Sixsmith, J. & Sixsmith, A. (1991) The interrelations between personallife events and the meaning and use of home. Journal ofArchit~ctural and PlIlnning Research, 8(3}. Teasdale, P., WexlerR, M. (1986) Dynamique de III familk, ajust~ts residentiels d soup/ess~ du Iog~t. Research Report, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Tognoli, J., Horwitz, J. (1982) From childhood home to adult home: environmental transformations. In P.Bart, A. Chen, G.Francescato (Eds) Knowkdg~for Design, (321-328). Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Washington, D.C.: EDRA. Vemez-Moudon, A. (1986) Bui/tfor chang~: neighborhood archit~cture in S4n Francisco. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wohlwill, J .. E(1973} The environment is not in the head! In W.EE. Preiser (Ed) Environmenttti design research, Vol. 2. Stroudshurg, Penn. : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
