Aug 9, 2013 - have chosen, the West Gable/Tower and the South Elevation highlighted on ... a substantial archway, which only a few of the original voussoirs ...
Stonemasonry Skills Development: Balancing New Technology and Tradition
SCOTT McGIBBON
Submitted for the Degree of MSc. of Building Conservation (Technology and Management)
Heriot-Watt University School of the Built Environment August 2013
The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of the quotation or information.
i
ABSTRACT The aim of this dissertation is to investigate the extent and nature of R&M. of the built heritage, concentrating on two types of common repair problems facing R&M. today: lack of maintenance and poor practice and examine if skills development is a contributory factor. These common repair problems are a continuing concern in the attempt for successful R&M., despite Scottish government initiatives (SHEP, 2011 and the Traditional Skills Strategy, HS, 2011) and the growing concern over stonemasonry skills development (e.g. 2011 Stimulating Demand for Traditional Skills Ministerial Summit). This dissertation met these twin research aims through an extensive study of relevant literature and the implementation of practical research. The latter was carried out through two case studies with Projects 1A and 1B using semi- structured interviews with key stakeholders in industry, training and government. The findings underline that there is no improvement in common repair problems and that different types of common repair problems have different skills needs (e.g. stone cladding technology directed at the modern construction community whereas traditional stonemasonry is aimed at pre1919 buildings) and, correspondingly, different, although overlapping, solutions. The main conclusion to be drawn from this work is that common repair problems are both a skills development problem and a cultural issue, at the heart of which lies a solution based on quality, performance and effectiveness.
Keywords Common Repair Problems, R&M, Stonemasonry, Skills Development, Structural, Masonry Fabric.
ii
DEDICATION
Acknowledgement I would like to express my thanks, appreciation and gratitude to the following for the strength and capability to finish this research: -
To my wife and son who despite her long lonely days and nights remained strong and supported me in any possible way throughout my course of study.
-
Sincere thanks go to Dr.Mohammed Abdel-Wahab for the guidance, encouragement and support he gave for accomplishing this work.
-
To all the people that have contributed directly and indirectly to the success of this research work. My sincere thanks go to all the respondents who have given their time and candid opinion on the research questions.
iii
DECLARATION STATEMENT Statement of Authorship
DECLARATION
I, Scott McGibbon, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and is expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, equations, figures, text, tables, programmes) are properly acknowledged at the point of their use. A full list of the references employed has been included.
Signed: Scott McGibbon
Student Number: 101639747
Date: 09/08/2013
Word Count: 15, 695
iv
ACADEMIC REGISTRY Research Thesis Submission
Name:
Scott McGibbon
School/PGI:
The School of the Built Environment
Version:
First
(i.e. First, Resubmission, Final)
Degree Sought (Award and Subject area)
MSc. Building Conservation (Technology and Management)
Declaration In accordance with the appropriate regulations I hereby submit my thesis and I declare that: 1) 2) 3) 4)
5)
*
the thesis embodies the results of my own work and has been composed by myself where appropriate, I have made acknowledgement of the work of others and have made reference to work carried out in collaboration with other persons the thesis is the correct version of the thesis for submission and is the same version as any electronic versions submitted*. my thesis for the award referred to, deposited in the Heriot-Watt University Library, should be made available for loan or photocopying and be available via the Institutional Repository, subject to such conditions as the Librarian may require I understand that as a student of the University I am required to abide by the Regulations of the University and to conform to its discipline. Please note that it is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the correct version of the thesis is submitted.
Signature of Candidate:
s.mcgibbon
Date :
Submission Submitted capitals):
By
Signature Submitting:
of
(name
in
Individual
Date Submitted:
SCOTT MCGIBBON S.McGibbbon 09/08/2013
For Completion in the Student Service Centre (SSC) Received in the SSC by (name in capitals):
1.1
Method of Submission
(Handed in to SSC; posted through internal/external mail):
1.2
E-thesis
Submitted
(mandatory for final theses)
Signature:
Date :
v
09/08/2013
Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Rationale .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Aim and objectives
............................................................................................. 5
1.2.1 Aim .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 2 – Stonemasonry Practices, Repair Problems, Skill Development ............ 7 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 2.2 An Overview of Stonemasonry in Scotland ............................................................... 7 2.3 The Current Role of Stonemasonry........................................................................... 11 2.4 Common Repair Problems ....................................................................................... 17 2.5 Stonemasonry Skills Development ........................................................................... 21 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 24 Chapter 3 – Methodology ............................................................................................ 26 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 26 3.2 Research Strategy ..................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Research Method ...................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 30 3.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 4 – Empirical Research Findings; Description, Analysis and Synthesis ... 36 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 36 4.2 Case study justification ............................................................................................ 37 4.3 Duntarvie Castle ....................................................................................................... 37 4.4 Edinburgh College of Art ......................................................................................... 43 4.5 Case Study Analysis .................................................................................................. 47 4.6 Current Challenges Facing Refurbishment of Historic Building. ............................ 49
vi
4.7 Stonemasonry Skills Development Challenges ....................................................... 51 4.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 54 Chapter 5 – Conclusion ................................................................................................ 55 5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 55 5.2 Research Objectives: Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................ 55 5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 60 5.3 Further research ........................................................................................................ 62 5.4 Reflection on the Dissertation Process ..................................................................... 63 References/Bibliography .............................................................................................. 66 Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 73 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix C ................................................................................................................... 104
vii
List of tables Table 1. Percentage split of repair to pre-1919 buildings (SHCS, 2010) Table 2. Sample of Distribution reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012). Table 3. Distribution of most common masonry repair elements across Scotland reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012). Table 4. Common Masonry Repair; Reproduced from SSLG report (2006) Table 5. Types of case study and purpose Table 6. Requirements and purpose of case study Table 7. Differences of Quantitative and Qualitative research strategies; reproduced from Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students (Naoum, 2007) Table 8. Reasons, advantages, and disadvantages of interviews Table 9. Research Objective and Method Table 10.Key Stakeholders Interviewed Table 11.Case study and Training stakeholder Interviews: themes and no. of questions Table 12.Project 1A Masonry Problems and Solutions Table 13. Project 1B Masonry Repair Problems and Solutions Table 14. Common Repair Defects List of illustrations Chapter 1 Fig A. Rosslyn Chapel; Reproduced from Rosslyn Chapel Educational Materials (2011) Fig B. Stonemasonry Apprenticeship Timeline Chapter 2 Fig 1. Examples of good refurbishment to Scotland’s castles and cathedrals Fig 2. Examples of poor refurbishment to Scotland’s castles and cathedrals Fig.3. Number of building stone quarries in mid-19th century reproduced from Skills and Resources for Future of Scotland’s Built Heritage (SSLG, 2007) Fig.4. Graph of events and development. Reproduced from Building Stones of Edinburgh (McMillan et al, 1999) Fig.5. Original Elevation Drawing of Caledonian Hotel, Edinburgh Fig.6. Distribution of building stone quarries in mid-19th century reproduced from Skills and Resources for Future of Scotland’s Built Heritage (SSLG, 2007). Fig.7. Typical Stonemasonry Mass Rubble Masonry Construction viii
Fig.8. Distribution, Percentage and Number of Disrepair of pre-1919 buildings reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012). Fig.9. Estimated Stonemasonry Requirements; Reproduced from SSLG report (2006) Fig.10.Traditional hand fixed cladding; reproduced from Portland Stone Technical Manual (Albion Stone, 2009). Fig.11. Modern rain screen cladding; reproduced from Portland Stone Technical Manual (Albion Stone, 2009). Fig.12. Example of lack of maintenance Fig.13. Example of poor practice Fig.14. Example of poor practice Fig.15. Cross section of orientation of bedding planes in typical ashlar. Reproduced from Natural Stone Masonry in Modern Scottish Construction (Urquhart, 2008) Figure 15. Example of Cement and Plastic Repair Figure 16. Percentage of wish list covered by awards; Reproduced from HS; Scottish Traditional Building Skills; Audit Scoping Exercise (2010) Fig.17. Percentage Drop in Apprentices, Source: Hutton and Rostron (1997) Chapter 3 Fig.18. Generic conceptual framework Chapter 4 Fig.19. North and South Elevation Architectural impression (2010) Fig 20.Duntarvie Castle Development: Architectural impression (2010) Fig.21. Reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010) Figure 22. Proposed Floor plan: reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010) Fig.23. Stone infill panels to doorway and windows on North Elevation Fig.24. Poor structural repair Fig.25. Archaeological recording of section of West Gable; reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010) Fig.26. Exterior view of current re-building works to West Gable and South elevation Fig.27. Plan of Edinburgh College of Art and Hunter Building: reproduced with permission from project Architects (2012) Fig.28 .Elevation drawing of initial fabric repairs: reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2012) Fig.29. Example of “fishtail” tie ix
Chapter 5 Figure 30. Diagrammatic Relationship between recommendations Glossary of abbreviations BS British Standard CITB Construction Industry Training Board FE Further Education HS Historic Scotland ICOMOS the International Council on Monuments and Sites MSP Modern Stonemasonry Practice NCC National Conservation Centre NHTG National Heritage Training Group NOS National Occupational Standards NSI Natural Stone Institute ONS Office for National Statistics RIBA the Royal Institute of British Architects R&M. Repair and Maintenance SHCS Scottish Housing Condition Survey SHEP Scottish Historic Environment Policy SG Scottish Government SMC Scheduled Monument Consent SOC Standard Occupational Classification SQA Scottish Qualification Authority SSC Sector Skills Council SSLG Scottish Stone Liaison Group TAP Training Assessment Programme
x
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 - Research Rationale, Aims and Structure
“In an age of space satellites and heart transplants, we have become rather blasé about the wonders of new technology. The focus of concern, then, is with the wisdom of man’s decisions in using and adapting to these new technologies.” (Condit, 1969)
1.0 Research Background
To ensure delivery of the important aspects of the Government’s Historic Environment Strategy (2012), as well as being a substantial contributor to the Scottish economy by contributing more than £1.2 billion (NHTG, 2007), there is an indispensable need to determine the extent of R&M. At present there are over 455,000 pre-1919 buildings equating to 19.3% of Scotland’s building stock and 1% of this number, approximately 47,600, are listed (HS, 2009).
Research by SHCS (2010) quantified the level of
disrepair to pre-1919 housing stock (Figure 1), alarmingly, 90% of this stock required routine repair, 76% (340,000) exhibited disrepair to critical elements (Table 1). While 53% (240,000) showed “urgent disrepair, despite a series of primary legislation, (SG, 2013, and HS, 2011) and secondary (SG, 2004 and 2006), stipulating the use of proactive maintenance whilst utilising an appropriately skilled workforce, therefore the authentic character of this amount of buildings and their traditional construction emphasises no heritage building is maintenance-free, and lends itself to an increased application of stonemasonry.
Table 1. Percentage split of repair to pre-1919 buildings (SHCS, 2010)
1
Stonemasonry has been used for the construction of some of the most important monuments and structures around Scotland (NSI, 2005, and Scottish Executive, 2007). Fascinatingly, these skills were not constricted to just historic buildings; the fine detail of the motifs of Celtic high crosses, were in principle geometrically similar to that used in Egyptian and Greek civilisations (Hull, 2003).
Understandably, the traditional term stone masonry, is expansive in nature and encompasses a range of functions and systems; quarrying, fabricating and fixing of natural stone. For example, the world famous Rosslyn Chapel, Mid-Lothian (Figure A), illustrates a culmination of all these processes in being able to deliver an exceptional building that has stood the adversity of time. This is a testament to the stonemason’s skills and his ability to define higher points in human thought and development, such Rosslyn Chapel became a “Bible in stone”, articulating the stories of the Bible in the form of stone carvings and taught people valuable lessons about the nature of life and death itself (Walker, 2011).
Figure A. Rosslyn Chapel; Reproduced from Rosslyn Chapel Educational Materials (2011) Now into the 21st century, with construction advancement, and a paradigm shift in thinking regarding its relationship with R&M., there is a rejuvenated focus on skills development in particular traditional stonemasonry skills and knowledge available for the sympathetic repair and maintenance of Scotland’s built heritage (Forster, et al, 2010a/b and 2011b). However, NHTG (2007) outlined that £1.2 billion had been spent on R&M, yet with insufficient investment to skills development, Scotland’s built heritage, is in danger from being unable to arrest disrepair due to the lack of skilled 2
stonemasons. As the discussion around R&M. and the built heritage grows stronger, so does the debate concerning stonemasonry skills development, as stated by Forster et al (2011a):
"An important component of historic building maintenance is stone fabric repairs.”
Currently, National Occupational Standards (NOS) defines the current skills, knowledge and understanding of stonemasonry, unfortunately, the term stonemason is now incorporated under the SOC term “5312: Bricklayers and masons” (ONS, 2012), although perhaps with NHTG (2007) declaring 33%-50% of building professionals and building stock owners, experienced difficulty in obtaining the service of an actual stonemason, there is a need for a distinction in description between these crafts to avoid confusion, raising a further paradigm as there is no reference to the actual amount of stonemasons within these statistics.
To understand the current context of skills development, it is necessary to re-visit the history of stonemasonry practice. Due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire much of the engineering knowledge and skills of the time was lost (Watkin, 2005). However, during the 9th and 10th centuries, a resurgence occurred and by the 12th century, religious fervour resulted in the construction of thousands of impressive churches and cathedrals in stone across Western Europe (Sutton, 1999).
Intriguingly, various
historical researchers (Jordan, 1969, Sutton, 1999, and Watkin, 2005) consider stonemasonry architecture, in particular Gothic, to be spiritually uplifting architectural art. Daniels (2012, pg12-13) clearly points out:
“Some of the greatest sculptures and decorative carving known to man originate in the classical periods and middle ages…. It was the stonemasons who created theses wonders.”
Although stonemasonry is an ancient craft (O’ Cathain, 2009), most records date from the 19th century, as many of the traditional techniques and methods were passed down through a hierarchical system, vocational in nature, of education and training: Master stonemasons supervised the highly skilled stonemasons who in turn supervised the
3
apprentices, so to understand the changes in training of a stonemason, a basic timeline is supplied (Figure B).
Figure B. Stonemasonry Apprenticeship Timeline
1.1 Research Rationale
The rationale behind this research topic is the belief that it is necessary to address the current repair problems of built heritage R&M. and examine why common repair problems occur frequently. Therefore if common repair problems are to be overcome can skills developments play a central role in achieving these outcomes? Central to this belief, various studies (Ashurst and Ashurst,1988, Forster 2010a, 2010b, Hyslop, 2004, Maxwell, 2007, NHTG, 2007, and Torney et al, 2012 ) concluded that the quality of 4
repairs executed is contributing to the process of decay, stimulatingly SSLG’s (2006) similar study of Glasgow’s built heritage, a micro-scale analysis of not only the level of disrepair but also the number of stonemasons that would be required to service the surveyed repairs over a twenty year period.
For example, to implement all of the stone repair needs of the City of Glasgow would take 1,395,373 stonemason days, in other words over 6,000 stonemasons for the next 20 years but in reality 301 stonemasons per year are required annually. This requirement will be unattainable due to the current economic climate and various other mitigating factors, out with the scope of this research, therefore, it is necessary to address how stonemasonry skills development can support a skills resurgence through the need to champion quality and performance, by promoting high standards of training. Consequently the issue is not “is skills development good or bad” but whether the current challenges of acquisition and application of knowledge and skills can be surmounted for the benefit of R&M. of the built heritage.
1.2 Aim and objectives
1.2.1 Aim
The aim of the research is to explore the role of skills development in historic building R&M., investigate common repair problems related to stonemasonry, and to what extent stonemasonry skills development is a contributory factor to poor practice, to make recommendations for possible future action relating to skills development of stonemasonry as a powerful R&M. tool. Therefore the research is ultimately aimed at providing stimulus and improvement in the R&M of the stone built heritage and a wider adoption of stonemasonry skills. The intention of this study is to examine
The key questions this study will attempt to answer are:
1. What is stonemasonry’s current role in confronting the extent of R&M requirements?
2. What are the common repair problems facing the refurbishment of historic buildings and does stonemasonry skills development have an impact on their occurrence? 5
3. What are the key challenges affecting R&M. and stonemasonry skills development?
1.2.2 Objectives
1. To investigate historical stonemasonry practice, and identify the current role of stonemasonry.
2. Identify and examine the causes of common repair problems and to what extent skills development is a contributory factor.
3. Explore key stakeholder views and issues related to R&M. of historic buildings, including challenges and barriers to stonemasonry skills development.
4. Develop recommendations for addressing repair problems.
6
Chapter 2 Stonemasonry Practices, Repair Problems, Skill Development 2.1 Introduction This chapter will analyse the relevant literature relating to stonemasonry and historic building R&M. First, this chapter provides an overview of stonemasonry practice in Scotland. Secondly, the chapter examines the extent of the R&M. on the built heritage, discusses common repair problems and examines their relevant characteristics. Thirdly, the chapter examines current stonemasonry skills development and the challenges.
2.2 An Overview of Stonemasonry in Scotland The stone built heritage, as we know it today, is replete with history, as the vast majority of Scotland’s built heritage is created of natural stone ranging from simple local community dwellings to the iconic castles and cathedrals (Figure 1 & 2), all built by highly skilled stonemasons (Hyslop and McMillan, 2006a). Ruskin (1853), enthused that the artisanship of stonemasonry rests in the fundamental expression of the craft; a completed building.
Figure 1. Examples of good refurbishment to Scotland’s castles and cathedrals
Figure 2. Examples of poor refurbishment to Scotland’s castles and cathedral.
7
In reality, the culmination of these skills, is an acute understanding of proportion and geometry, indicating stonemasonry is a myriad of parts; craft, art, mathematics, and science; processes that were developed in order to construct buildings that supported longevity and durability, strengthened by the utilisation of distinctive indigenous vernacular stone (Dunbar, 1966 and Glendinning et al, 1996). Consequently, recent studies (Hyslop and McMillan, 2003, and NSI, 2005) confirmed the fundamental importance of stonemasonry, the material, its geology, and continued technological advancement to the aesthetic value, durability and lifespan of historic buildings. McMillan et al (2006a, and 2006b) discovered, historically there was an abundance of locally available indigenous stone rising to an estimated 1,200 by the mid-19th century (Figure 3), additionally, McMillan et al’s (2008) study, mapped the major historic stone construction impact in Edinburgh of the last two hundred years with the influence of technological development (Figure 4). This relationship can be seen in the 19th century building, the Caledonian Hotel (Figure 5); constructed of red sandstone transported from the South of Scotland, such has been the impact, that today it is widely regarded as one of Edinburgh’s iconic buildings (McMillan and Hyslop, 2008).
Figure 3. Number of building stone quarries in mid-19th century reproduced from Skills and Resources for Future of Scotland’s Built Heritage (SSLG, 2007)
8
Figure 4. Graph of events and development. Reproduced from Building Stones of Edinburgh (McMillan et al, 1999)
Figure 5.Original Elevation Drawing. Reproduced from www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/ Disconcertingly, McMillan (1997), reported there were a derogatory 20 available sites for the supply of stone, although, today this situation has slightly improved, as approximately 50 are active (BGS, 2005), and invaluably the geographical position has been mapped for future reference (SSLG, 2007) (Figure 6), however
this leaves
stonemasonry facing a dearth of available indigenous stone for repair. Therefore, it is clearly apparent, the present stone built heritage gives the landscape of Scotland its unique cultural and historical significance (Bell, 1998).
9
Figure 6. Distribution of 19th century building stone quarries reproduced from Skills and Resources for Future of Scotland’s Built Heritage (SSLG, 2007). Accordingly, SHEP (2011), offers the view, that the cultural significance of a place is symbolised in its fabric (BS 7913, 1998, and Burra Charter, 1999), and therefore states; “a fundamental need to use appropriate technical knowledge, materials, skills and methods of working for the care, repair and maintenance of the historic environment and at the same time providing employment, while supporting the survival and expansion of traditional skills.” However, the traditional practice of stonemasonry, the process of the expert hand techniques and methods used to craft decorative elements and build structural components, are very much as they have been for millennia, despite technological advancement.
Such, Purchase’s (1896), and Warland’s (1929), seminal technical
works, which examined the art of stone cutting and all its complexities, and addressed contemporary methods of stonemasonry of the time; composite solid wall construction and the rapidly emerging method of stone cladding to steel frame construction, are still regarded as the stonemasonry bibles (Weeks, 2006), especially since both authors are stonemasons. Even today the path to become a stonemason still consists of a certain time period spent as an apprentice, although governed by NOS (CITB, 2012), learning the hands on aspect of the work that is not possible to teach from a book.
10
For instance, the Scottish Executive (2007) declares the traditional form of stonemasonry construction; solid wall construction (Figure 7) is predominantly vernacular in nature utilising local sources of materials and skills, practiced for centuries in Scotland to create Scotland’s unique built heritage. Clearly, there is a very close traditional relationship between the vernacular architectural style, stonemasonry skills and the geology of Scotland and re-affirms that the conservation of Scotland’s heritage buildings is of paramount importance to the diverse variety of architectural styles and sense of community throughout Scotland’s history.
Figure 7. Typical stonemasonry mass rubble masonry construction 2.3 The Current Role of Stonemasonry In the majority, stonemasonry is practiced by privately owned SME’s, similar to the construction sector, particularly sole traders (NHTG, 2007), unfortunately there is currently no up to date research into which sectors stonemasonry performs in the main; new build or R&M. Encouragingly, NHTG (2007) provided a clearer picture and reported; 58% of contractors interviewed procured 50% of their work on pre-1919 buildings, while various studies (SHCS, 2010, and HS, 2012c) have intimated the future area of stonemasonry application; determining valuable regional data regarding disrepair and statistical distribution of pre-1919 buildings, (Table 2), subsequently mapped, allowing an effective visualisation of the extent of the problem (Figure 8), which predictably, correlates with SSLG’s (2007) mapping of historical quarries.
11
Local Authority Area
Percentage
of
Pre-1919
Dwellings Lowest
Highest
North Lanarkshire
3%
East Dunbartonshire
7%
West Lothian
7%
City of Edinburgh
32%
Moray
32%
Scottish Borders
33%
Orkney Islands
37%
Table 2. Sample of Distribution reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012c). While gaining valuable regional information regarding disrepair is an essential necessity; the problem is more acute in some areas than others, it is extremely important to determine which types of stonemasonry skills are required to address the demand for stonemasonry skills, there is a need to consider carefully not only the areas they might target, but also the types of repair that are required (HS, 2012b), however current information is too generic to determine specialised skill requirements (Table 3). Disrepair element External
masonry
No. of households
Proportion Percentage
wall 183,000
54%
127,000
38%
44,000
13%
finish Chimney stacks External wall structure
Table 3. Distribution of most common masonry repair elements across Scotland reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012).
12
Figure 8. Distribution, Percentage and Number of Disrepair of pre-1919 buildings reproduced from Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills (HS, 2012). Yet, pioneering research published by SSLG (2006), encapsulated this conclusion. For the study, 234 representative samples from a possible 24,000 stone facades of Glasgow’s stone buildings were identified, quantifying the city’s stone built heritage needs;
97% of the buildings would require some form of masonry repair (Table, 4) within the next 20 years.
13
Currently 65 available stonemasons - to service 100% of the repairs researched 6,000 stonemasons required over a twenty year period (Figure 9) - costing of £585 million circa £24,000 per façade.
Compatible stones of the six blond and four red sandstones utilised in the construction can be located, distressingly two unidentified blond sandstone types accounted for 38% of stone requirements.
Masonry Repair
Type of Repair
Re-pointing
Routine repair
Stone
replacement
(isolated
and Disrepair to critical elements
widespread) Structural Repair
Extensive Repair
Table 4. Common Masonry Repair; Reproduced from SSLG report (2006)
Figure 9. Estimated Stonemasonry Requirements; Reproduced from SSLG report (2006) However, there is an inherent danger that the repair and supply estimate is exaggerated as over 50% of the 234 buildings surveyed had been previously repaired with a plastic repair, which could lead to unnecessary repairs. Nonetheless, frustratingly, this is now an outdated appraisal, in particular economics and supply, therefore the findings can now be assumed to be in excess of the 2006 figure. Taking this into account, the need for repairs and subsequent maintenance is abundantly clear and that disrepair is a serious problem, illustrated not only by the precarious position of Glasgow’s stone built heritage but Scotland’s as well.
Therefore, the obligation of stonemasonry skills 14
towards Scotland’s built heritage has never been greater and the ability to perform this future requirement is essential as it not only conserves the building but also the collective effort, skill and dedication of the original builders (Love and Bullen, 2009). Gratefully, for R&M. research this in-depth study and its valuable insight into disrepair in one of Scotland’s major cities, highlighting to truly ascertain disrepair data there is a need for more detailed studies of Scotland’s stonemasonry stone built heritage. Providing a strong foundation in the call for an increase in micro analysis of individual locales, as they are a vital cog in the quest to not only to truly determine Scotland’s towns and cities stone built heritage needs, but clarify stonemasonry skills development requirements.
Figure 10.Traditional hand fixed cladding; reproduced from Portland Stone Technical Manual (Albion Stone, 2009).
15
Figure 11. Modern rain screen cladding; reproduced from Portland Stone Technical Manual (Albion Stone, 2009). Fortunately, HS (2007) published a guide for practitioners allowing judgement to be made on how successfully an existing traditional building, can be converted to meet the quality and performance requirements of the functional standards and illustrated how their successful survival and reuse might be achieved (Urquhart, 2007). Regrettably, this technical handbook although beneficial, suffers from sparse coverage of specific stonemasonry repair techniques and methods, then it would be reasonable to assume this reverberates the need of specific up to date technical stonemasonry knowledge for successful historic building R&M.
2.5 Common Repair Problems As 579,022 properties of designated and undesignated historic sites are in the majority privately owned (HS, 2012a), historically, stonemasonry repairs normally transpire, for the private sector as a necessity; either being detrimental to the building performance or they have been included in the specification of works rather, than regarded as part of a pro-active maintenance scheme (HS, 2012c). Therefore predictably, detrimental effects on quality, performance and effectiveness are continually gaining momentum across the country, and both the residential and non-residential stock are at least in a similar if not worse state of repair (SHCS, 2010, and HS, 2012c). Worryingly, a common repair problem is a lack of routine maintenance (Figure 12), such that the value of systematic and preventive maintenance is not widely appreciated, not just by the public but, also by professional and craftsman alike., despite the fact, these properties in the last ten years had been awarded over £123 million towards fabric repair (HS, 2010).
Figure 12. Example of lack of maintenance Yet, various studies (Powys, 1929, Brereton, 1991, Fieldman, 2003 and Beckmann and 16
Bowles, 2004) stress, the optimum process for ensuring building longevity and durability is regular maintenance, to underline, there is a principal need for the private sector to address pro-active R&M., however Fielden’s (2003, pg 61) influential work valuably clarified; “Each geographical region and period in history has had its own characteristic way of building walls. Therefore, each type of wall has different preservation and repair problems dependent upon its construction” For instance, structural cracking is common place in historic buildings in Scotland (Cruickshank and Wyld, 1975, Harper, 1985, Davey, 1988, and CIRIA, 1998), especially when historic buildings are subjected to change of use (Urquhart, 2007). Unsurprisingly, in MSP, fractures frequently occur in stone, due to the misguided use of iron cramps and dowels (Bailey and Ball, 1984). Therefore, lack of maintenance and variability in construction, has led to stop gap measures from knee-jerk repair decisions, such as when a crack appears in stone lintol, compromising structural integrity, requiring g stone replacement, is commonly repaired with a cement mortar (Figure 13). Invariably, not re-addressed causing secondary repair defects, indicating that an indepth understanding of the critical factors affecting the structural performance of historic buildings is critical, in diagnosing appropriate R&M. (Beckmann and Bowles, 2004).
Figure 13. Example of poor practice On the contrary, the divided approach to selection of stone has not always resulted in the most appropriate material being used for repairs resulting in damage to adjacent masonry with use of incompatible materials (Henry, 2007). Such is the correlation, if 17
historic building R&M. could exploit the proximity of locally available quarries in its stone specification, with appropriate indigenous stone (McMillan et al, 2008), it would be consistent to assume improvements in the quality of repair.
Indicating, that
knowledge of available resources, different indigenous stone types and the need to respond to its characteristics are vital to skills development, yet in the quest to achieve this objective, perhaps learning “hands on” knowledge, through an in depth observation of the specification and quarrying process, conceivably adopting an inter-disciplinary approach such as the protocol for stone selection which a forms such a crucial part of the repair process (Henry, 2007). Equally, the term masonry fabric repair envelops various methods of stone repair techniques, yet in simplistic terms, there are three principally common types of repair: stone replacement, plastic repair and pinning and consolidation (Forster et al, 2011a). Unfortunately, these generic descriptions have numerous sub-sets as well as an adaptability and flexibility of techniques dependant on the repair required which could lead to poor practice in uneducated hands, such as the excessive removing of new stone, by mechanical means to allow accommodation in to the recipient void, undermining the structural integrity of the repair (Figure, 14).
Figure 14. Example of poor practice Hyslop’s (2004) highly valuable detailed examination of 14 case study buildings in Edinburgh’s new town, a UNESCO world heritage site, further added this use of technology led to mechanical saw marks on stone surfaces and an increase in damage to neighbouring masonry. Intriguingly, he remarked poor practice occurred more on repair schemes that were not reliant on grant funding, and hypothesised, the implementation of
18
an incentive based payment by the contractor to the stonemasonry craft operative, for improved productivity, has led to an increase of this poor practice. Hence, it is not too difficult to think of an example of stone replacement not affected by this process, therefore, increased productivity must be balanced with the need to retain quality. On the contrary, to lay the culpability solely at the door of productivity would be illadvised. Instead, Maxwell (2007) discovered it is far more likely to observe poor quality surrounding standards of workmanship and knowledge of masonry practices. As illustrated by Hyslop and McMillan (2007), when building replacement stone, stonemasons must be guided by observing the natural qualities of the stones, by identifying and aligning the stones bedding plane horizontally (Figure 15), (Ashurst and Dimes, 1998, Ashurst and Ashurst, 1998), misguidedly, in several cases this has not happened and has led to delamination of the stone (ICOMOS, 2008).
Figure 15. Cross section of orientation of bedding planes in typical ashlar. Reproduced from Natural Stone Masonry in Modern Scottish Construction (Urquhart, 2008) However in the main, employing incompatible modern materials such as, cement for repairs, specifically re-pointing and plastic repairs (Figure 16), is still taking place across the central belt of Scotland, becoming increasingly used to repair traditional buildings, causing an abundance of decay impact problems (Gibbons, 2003, and Forster, 2010b), restricting the wall’s absorptive capacity and compatibility of the material (Mitchell, 2007), despite the clearly recognised the performance benefits of lime-based materials on the functionality of stone walling (Forster and Carter 2007, and Gibbons, 2003).
19
Confusingly, in the search for quality, performance and effectiveness, Ashurst and Ashurst (1988) claimed whatever material used; cement or lime, a greater understanding of material performance and compatibility was essential, signifying a contradiction in advice, which could be, in part the influence of the current “cement mentality”, as this academic book is highly regarded by those involved in masonry repair. Fortunately, recent research (Torney et al, 2012) stated that regardless of the quality of work, failure is particularly prevalent with OPC based plastic repairs, although they did point out that decay could occur due to the use of excessively hard lime mortars.
Figure 16. Example of Cement and Plastic Repair Ominously at present, there are no definitive figures to the scale of these common problems, yet encouragingly, with the resurgence of interest in lime mortar and stone for repair and conservation in the 21st century, there are pressing needs both to understand these complex materials and techniques, and use them unequivocally, as they will require a higher degree of skill application to reduce the incidences of failure, while this seems a predictable conclusion, the critical part is how to turn that need into demand and action, perhaps through technological advancement in stonemasonry skills development, exploiting current information technology. 2.5 Stonemasonry Skills Development Central to historic building R&M. is addressing the skill deficiency, yet recent studies (NHTG, 2007, and HS, 2010) are the only research to date to identify where gaps lie between current training options and current requirements in Scotland’s stonemasonry sector. Nevertheless, the findings of the NHTG (2007) reiterate the earlier challenge, and discovered stonemasonry as being particularly weak in terms of skill set concerning traditional rubble walling, stone hewing and carving, underlined by an earlier UK wide
20
HLF report (2001). To highlight this anomaly, it was cited as the type of training wanted most by sole traders, although distressingly 73% of this group appeared to be undertaking no training of any form (NHTG, 2007). Paradoxically, HS (2010) invited stakeholders within the industry to propose a wish list of traditional stonemasonry skills which were then compared against current content (Appendix A, 3.0). Disturbingly, the comparative analysis found a lack of relevancy towards repair and maintenance of the built heritage i.e. the stonemasonry TAP (SQA Level 3) only covered 13% of the stakeholder wish list, which rose to 41% if the individual continued to advanced craft level (Figure 17), ultimately, this study emphasised MSP drives the FE course content.
Figure 17. Percentage of wish list covered by awards; Reproduced from HS; Scottish Traditional Building Skills; Audit Scoping Exercise (2010) Which gives rise to the question; how can quality be achieved, when the current training content is deficient specifically in the repair of the stone built heritage? This outcome provides valuable evidence in the search for high quality skills development, as Leitch (2006) advocated, that to achieve world class training we must move towards a demand led system, where employer, and learner has a greater influence over FE content and SSC set qualification standards.
However, a heritage stonemasonry apprenticeship
(SAP) was established by industry, in conjunction with the NHTG (CITB, 2011), but unfortunately widespread knowledge of this option is low, as currently no FE College delivers this training programme, yet this can be partly explained by the expensive nature of stonemasonry training. 21
This impact can cause detrimental factors like cutting of courses because of a lack of demand especially across certain regions, as in the case of Aberdeen College which closed its doors to stonemasonry courses due to the downturn primarily in the granite industry in late 1999, in spite of this, currently four centres deliver stonemasonry; three in Central Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Stirling) and one in Northern Scotland (Elgin), although two fall under the auspices of HS, and are limited to the number of apprentices that they train.
Hence, this signifies that there needs to be not only an
integrated approach, but also an evolution towards a more coherent system of training and skills provision to meet the demands of R&M., a concept HS has realised in the anticipated N.C.C due for completion in 2016. In brief stonemasonry technology knowledge may have an important part to play, but without a suitably skilled workforce and long term planning of resources, to meet industry requirements, may become a feature of the past (Clarke and Wall, 1998). Intriguingly, Hutton and Rostron (1997), provided an early insight into the stonemasonry skills shortage, particularly skills development, confirming there had been a 33% drop in apprentice numbers in a five year period from 40 apprentices in 1992 to 27 in 1996 (Figure 18). Unfortunately, SSLG (2006) were unable to give a more positive picture, reflecting that during 2003-2006, 177 apprentices entered for the SQA level 2 and 3 award, only 24 and 2 awards were granted respectively. Unfortunately, these studies had only investigated CITB levy registered companies with further evidence compiled from alternative sources to which the reports did not allude. Anecdotally, a recent online article from the respected William Morris Craft Fellowship Trust (2013), gloomily alleged that at present there are around 350 registered stonemasons in Scotland, while NHTG (2007) stated there were 447 working stonemasons; 272 were directly employed (61%), 142 were self-employed (32%) and 33 (7%) were apprentices. Which gives rise to a further question; how can quality be achieved, when the number of suitably qualified craftsman is unknown specifically by industry which in turn informs the public sphere.
22
Figure 18. Percentage Drop in Apprentices, Source: Hutton and Rostron (1997) Clearly, the aforementioned contradictory figures present a difficulty in assessing future provision needs, nevertheless, to inappropriately confine research to sporadic studies and anecdotal evidence, restraint must be taken when interpreting the findings (Dainty et al, 2005). Whilst providing an insight into available craftsmen they may perhaps, lead to anomalies in determination of current stonemasonry numbers, as highlighted and accordingly, without a more encompassing analysis, caution must be taken in the reliability of these figures, as there are probably twice as many more that profess to be properly qualified, but do not have the technical expertise or have been given the proper training in order to produce a high standard of work (Agapiou et al., 1995). Nevertheless, Hutton and Rostron, (1997), SSLG, (2006) and NHTG, (2007) provided an invaluable snapshot of the stonemasonry skills sector and indicated that an increase in appropriate stonemasonry skills development is vital in the attempt to safeguard the historic environment, pragmatically, the future ability and quality of workforce, needs to be underpinned by education and training (Agapiou et al 1995). Yet, central to any increase in stonemasonry skills development, is challenging the lack of new blood in the stonemasonry, imposingly, the fragmented nature of the construction industry (Dainty et al., 2005), is unequivocally mirrored in the stonemasonry trade,
therefore current statistics concerning available stonemasonry
positions, are difficult to gauge as opportunities for apprentices and craftsmen, tend to not be advertised, symptomatic of UK construction as whole (Clarke and Hermann, 2007). Contradictorily, NHTG (2007) discovered stonemasonry faces a disconnection of how young adults view the traditional building sector, noting HS stonemasonry apprenticeships were oversubscribed compared to the private sector. Although not
23
investigated as to why this had occurred, we suggest that young people were attracted to HS because of their highly respected commitment to training and skills development, as Kappia et al. (2005) reminded us of the value of career development for craft labour. 2.6 Conclusion To begin with this research gives a clear representation that there is a very close vernacular relationship between traditional architectural style, stonemasonry skills and the local geology and that R&M. of historic buildings is a complex and technical landscape. Nonetheless, an approach that is geared towards long term quality and performance can only be achieved by employing only those with the right skills and knowledge. A combination of neglect and poor practice has generated a critical period for Scotland’s uniquely diverse built heritage. Therefore, it is the responsibility of stakeholders, in the form of skills development to ensure that the correct materials and labour are determined and used for the built heritage, to help eradicate common repair problems. Encouragingly, these skills and knowledge of fast-disappearing generations of craftspeople can be recovered and re-invested for future generation of successful R&M. This poses a series of questions for all stakeholders involved in stonemasonry R&M. on how this can be achieved, however, there must be an uncompromising commitment from all responsible, to ensure that society can continue to appreciate our cultural heritage and so the centuries of vision, creativity and skills of the stonemason can once again become an integral part of the historic environment. Yet, for meaningful debate and academic credibility, guidance and recommendations ought to be based on research findings, using valid and reliable methods of data collection and the aforementioned review of literature supports this claim. The next stage of this research will detail the Research Methods to be used to capture the empirical data, including details on the research strategy to be adopted, data collection techniques, sample selection and management of the researcher’s role.
24
Chapter 3 – Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction This chapter encompasses an interpretation of selected data collection and analysis methods, why they were collected in the way they were and specifies any limitations of the method chosen. Within the context of R&M. of the built heritage, this research study has a number of correlated but specific objectives, which are; 1. To investigate historical stonemasonry practice, and identify the current role of stonemasonry. 2. Identify and, examine common repair problems and to what extent skills development is a contributory factor. 3. Explore key stakeholder views and issues related to R&M. of historic buildings, including challenges and barriers to stonemasonry skills development. 4. Develop recommendations for addressing common repair problems. A literature review of the field of stonemasonry in the Chapter 2 addressed Objective 1 and initially, Objective 2.
Furthermore, to take this research one step further,
beneficially Objective 2 and 3 relates to the collection and analysis of empirical data obtained from current “live” projects and from key stakeholders involved in stonemasonry training. Relevantly, a core of the empirical work will be data collection, garnered from key stakeholders’ application of stonemasonry and their perspectives on commented challenges and barriers to successful historic building R&M. within an active environment. Further data gathered on key stakeholders’ involved in training, will provide the opportunity to explore why common repair problems occur and what they consider obstacles to stonemasonry skills development. The prospect, therefore, to obtain a multiplicity of stonemasonry stakeholder views and evaluate theory with practice (contrasting findings from the literature review with ‘live’ projects), ought to contribute significantly to this study, future research of R&M. of the built heritage in general, and in our quest to secure a deeper understanding of the issues associated with R&M. pertaining to stonemasonry skills development, be beneficial in contributing valuable knowledge to R&M. in a project environment. To enable the research to be structured as a series of inter-connected steps in a specific sequence, the study employed a methodical conceptual framework (Figure 18), due in part, to this concept not ruling out innovative thinking, but eliminating conjecture and suspicions in reaching its conclusions. 25
Figure 19. Generic conceptual framework 3.2 Research Strategy To exploit Objective 2 and 3 of this research we posed the question; what research strategy should be adopted to meet these objectives? As the data will be harnessed through the collection and analysis of empirical data, we had to focus on selecting the most appropriate strategy, as various researchers (Popper, 1963 and Saunders et al, 2007) claimed for success, it is fundamental that it relates with the disposition of the field of study and should be able furnish the hypothesis with equal chances of misrepresentation or corroboration. Therefore, it was decided that a case study research strategy will be used to implement the empirical research, which led to the question, what is a case study approach and why is it suitable for this research? According to several researchers (Yin, 1993, and Stake, 1995) numerous types of case studies are available, but stressed selection is dependant depends upon the aim of the research (Table 5), additionally, the purpose of case study research can be exploratory, descriptive, and interpretive (Mariano, 1993), although the descriptive purpose has been interpreted as analytical (Nauom, 2007).
26
Case Study Type
Purpose
Collective
Group of case studies to inquire into a particular phenomenon. Articulation of what is already
Descriptive
known about the phenomenon Explanatory
To investigate causal linkage
Exploratory
In order to inquire into a particular phenomenon. Provide insight into an issue used to
Instrumental
understand
more
than
what
is
obvious to the observer Gain a deeper understanding of the
Intrinsic
case Table 5: Types of case study and purpose To make the search for a well suited case study we had to first to pose some selection criteria. This was made possible by compiling a list of generic points that the case study should be able to cover (Table 6). Therefore, it was decided that an exploratory collective case studies method was appropriate, based on its ability to observe the physical characteristics of the selected area of study (Swetnam and Swetnam, 2009). Based on the literature review, best practice, reflection etc., authenticated by tangible case studies of current R&M projects; traditional construction technology and the utilisation of MSP. Objective 2 and 3’s additional empirical data study’s focus is to place stakeholders views in a wider context – what are the views of key stakeholders involved in training and how to balance the skills development of stonemasons, (including training, drivers, barriers, and motivational issues)? Requirements of case study
Purpose
Be simple enough without including too In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, many different types of common repair Be able to function as a clear example problems (good or bad practice)
Be focused enough but not extremely Clear assessment of various types of 27
specialised in one technical area (e.g. factors, many of them somehow distant to the technical part (financial, social, Stonemasons techniques, etc.) resource, legislation factors etc.) or at least not exclusively or mainly attached to it. The literature review findings can be Be in position to support a more generalised conclusion, rather than a checked. strictly ‘specific case study conclusion‘. Be of academic level but easy to present Based on verified data and understand
Table 6. Requirements and purpose of case study 3.3 Research Method When deciding on which type of research, at our disposal we had two types of research methods; “quantitative research” and “qualitative research” (Naoum, 2007). However, which method was best suited for our purposes, pressed us to pose the question; Which method supported our proposed in-depth study of common repair problems and the skills development impact, that stimulates motivation, while supporting the paradigm of procuring different stakeholder perspectives in order to facilitate a deeper interpretation of the phenomenon in a complex setting (two unique projects)? Beneficially, Naoum (2007) cites Bryman (1998) and provides a useful list of the two research differences (Table 7), while for construction management research Dainty (2008) highlights, qualitative methods can be used for hypothesis formation and examination. Therefore, as this research signifies a tendency to be primarily qualitative in nature, not quantitative, attempting to raise appreciation and interpret the phenomena in their accepted locations (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). We selected to engage in both quantitative and qualitative methods, two distinctive methods that ought to be amalgamated (Greene and Caracelli, 1997) to allow harmonising of work (Firestone, 1987; Dainty, 2008), based on the objective of the study to gather verifiable evidence, study the relationship and test the theory: “Stonemasonry skills development is fundamental in the continuation of Scotland’s built heritage”, and at the concurrent time evaluate subjectively, the opinion of stakeholders in stonemasonry. Quantitative Role
Relationship
Qualitative
Fact finding based on Attitude measurement evidence and records based on views, opinions and perceptions between Distant
Close 28
researcher and subject Scope of findings
Nomothetic
Relationship theory/concepts research
between Testing/confirmation and
Nature of data
Idiographic
Hard and reliable
Emerget/development
Rich and deep
Table 7. Differences of Quantitative and Qualitative research strategies; reproduced from Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students (Naoum, 2007) As the main focus of this research is to better understand R&M. of the built heritage and contribute knowledge in this field to the application and training population, a possible impediment to the validity of the research was our philosophical view of the world and how this would impact on the type of qualitative research strategy that would be adopted for research. Various researchers (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991 and Biggam, 2008) expressed that fundamentally, for qualitative research there were three classifications, namely, in no discerning order; positivist, critical and interpretive. Therefore, based on these interpretations, the researcher of this study holds a critical view and accepts that skills development has much controversy and inhibiting influences that are historically based, and that aspects of this research work may correspond with such opinions (e.g. drivers and barriers to stonemasonry skills). 3.4 Data Collection Selecting the means by which to collect empirical data is just as important as choosing an appropriate research strategy. To achieve the objectives of the study and to realise its aim, it was necessary to employ a mixture of both primary and secondary data collection. For the qualitative requirement of the study, primary research was collected, in the form of fieldwork, by the application of interviews and case studies, whereas, the quantitative requirement employed an encoding process based on the evaluation and analysis of current academic literature pertaining to stonemasonry, R&M and conservation of historic buildings, imparting statistical analysis of case-study results. Conversely, as this research sample was small in nature, we realised that the relationship between R&M. and stonemasonry skills development can only be discussed “intellectually” (Naoum, 2007) for the purposes of this research. Field work- Case studies
29
For the needs of this research we initially considered it best to use random sampling and selected case studies of buildings with the following specific characteristics;
Separate architectural ages,
Under different guardianship
Subject of advancement in stonemasonry construction technology,
Unfortunately, the initially selected R&M. case studies did not respond to our enquiries for participation, yet, as the skills development and application issue can be an ambiguous question (either positive or negative), it was not unexpected for participants to be wary. Although it is not a new concept for the construction industry as a whole, for R&M. of the built heritage little research has been done on stonemasonry skills development. We therefore decided to use convenience sampling utilising our industry contacts and previous career experience and selected 2 case studies; one from working experience, and one from professional contacts.
Therefore, as the subjects under study have not
been chosen at random, their views cannot allege to be representative of opinions related to the broader stonemasonry community. The buildings selected were considered high profile:
18th century Duntarvie Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument under private care.
1970’s stone cladding (modern stonemasonry practice) Edinburgh College of Art, under academic care.
They were chosen for varying reasons (cultural/social and built heritage legislation), fundamentally these buildings had verified similar common defects and common repair problems, which enabled us to examine previous and current repair problems more in depth and analyse the resultant outcomes, allowing us to comment on a firmer basis and leave out data unrelated. The decision to analyse and comment on already important buildings was based on the premise that they would be examples of “good practice” in combatting poor R&M., highlighting the need to employ suitably skilled professionals and craftsmen. To provide an appropriate vehicle of investigation in the determination of recurring masonry R&M problems, we employed in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, reviewed project files, and carried out site observation. Difficulty in analysis occurred, as to encompass the whole building would be problematic due to the timescale of the 30
research (6 months) and the magnitude of the projects, therefore the main repair defects were identified and two common repair problems were examined (lack of maintenance and cement repairs). In addition, we have obtained and generated relevant photographs, and building elevation drawings as reference points for the case study analysis. However, in case of imprecise details concerning the building‘s repair problems; a few contextual assumptions had to be made, not affecting however the outcome of the analysis. Fieldwork - Interviews The interview style decided upon was 'structured interview'. Personal interviews with key stakeholders have been selected over the use of questionnaires on the basis of a number of reasons, advantages, and disadvantages as noted in Table 8. Initially due to the time constraints of the study, we contemplated employing a questionnaire study, however due to its inherent poor response rate and simplification (Naoum, 2007), it was reasoned unfavourable as it would not be beneficial for the opportunity to obtain subjective and qualitative data and for the interviewee to express their views, as the emergence of additional information may be expected and easier achieved from structured interviews.
It was concluded that structured interviews were the most
effective form of data collection at our disposal, in our attempt to gauge the specific, yet potentially wide general nature of this study and gave us greater control over the interview process in terms of how the process takes place. We then identified for a successful interview to take place, the following criteria as noted in Table 9 is fundamental (Frankfort- Nachrnias & Nachmias, 1996) and Naoum, 2007). Reason
Advantages
The subjective nature Information leads to conflicting available data, encourages a healthy debate of the topic giving a more rounded discussion when writing up results.
Disadvantages is
directly Extra planning, increasing cost.
Interviews allow for a Answers given relate to a Information may not be divulged due to a sensitive more in depth analysis singular event. topic. as there is more scope allowed to the Answers may have bias. responses. Interviews cultivation
allows More in-depth interviewing Limitation of in-depth data collection. Fewer personnel of the of individuals. giving perhaps a limited 31
research topic
Topic warranting additional scope and perception from investigation may arise the sector to be examined. which can be investigated further with additional research.
Table 8. Reasons, advantages, and disadvantages of interviews
Requirements of structured interview Interviewees must characteristic
be
similar
Purpose in Responses can be measured and compared to each other effectively The meaning of each question is identical for each respondent
There must be identical context
Each respondent must experience the same sequence. Interviewee must be researched and their Interviewer can know what information can be expected to be extracted backgrounds known Presenting the interviewer some Personal contact is required to explain and additional data such as pictures or describe questions in more detail. graphs and gauging their responses. Case study needs to be investigated in More detail can be achieved face-to-face detail by asking questions such as how than in an impersonal interview. and why certain events occur or didn't occur The questions must be direct and To extract answers which are pertinent to the research objectives appropriately designed An in-depth discussion which involves Less formal and put the subject at ease and makes it easier to extract data which may more than a yes/no answer not be achieved without face-to-face contact Table 9. Requirements and purpose of structured interviews of interviews Literature Review Prior, to the relevant literature review it was first necessary to focus on specific technological areas pertinent to the study.
We decided to initially define certain
keywords, such as R&M., stonemasonry, and skills development, which would assist in the classification and selection of available information. The initial general search of pertinent literature to stonemasonry (history, technology, material, importance, 32
application, training, etc.), provided us with an arsenal of academic journals, books, reports, online articles, newspaper articles and other online databases for analysis. Once, we had decided on the specific questions and parameters of the study; identify and investigate common repair problems and identify the impact on R&M, while sequentially review current challenges relating to stakeholders responsible for stonemasonry skills development in Scotland, we filtered down the corresponding literature. Parallel to this stage we were able to locate specific case studies relevant to the basic questions (stonemasonry – skills development; R&M - repair problems commonality). As the more defined literature search continued we were able to specify keywords more acutely such as lack of maintenance, stone repair, application, availability, and training, however, we found that there was an absence of relevant literature concerning stonemasonry as a whole. Apart from a small number of targeted reports analysing stone decay impacts (Hyslop, 2004, SSLG, 2006, and NHTG, 2007) the large part of the literature encountered, analysed stonemasonry’s relevant issues by only taking into account one or few selected factors at a time (e.g. fabric repair, application, recruitment, training) and rarely a total correlation of them, which led us to finding out that the importance of stonemasonry skills development has yet to be examined thoroughly and holistically.
3.5 Conclusion An important contribution of this research work will be the study and analysis of empirical data on how stonemasonry stakeholders view the current challenges facing historic building R&M. and in particular stonemasonry skills development and the lessons to be learned from such consultation. In this chapter we examined a series of factors affecting the selection of a suitable research method and a combination of qualitative and quantitative parameter analysis approach has been judged as best suited. However, combining methods, concepts and research approaches cultivates imperfections, nonetheless keeping all this in mind, we had to interpret the nature of our subject and choose the right research method. The research was formed in a way that serves a technical subject (masonry refurbishment of historic buildings), while at the same time addresses qualitative issues such as challenges of skills development viewed from a stakeholder perspective (Table, 10).
33
Research objective
Method
To investigate historical and current Literature review-qualitative data stonemasonry practice, and identify the extent of R&M. requirements. Identify and, examine common repair Literature review-qualitative data problems and to what extent skills Case study- quantitative data development is a contributory factor. Explore key stakeholder views and issues Literature review-qualitative data related to R&M. of historic buildings, including challenges and barriers to Case study- quantitative data stonemasonry skills development. Develop recommendations for addressing common repair problems.
Table 11. Research Objective and Method
34
Chapter 4 – Empirical Research Findings; Description, Analysis and Synthesis 4.1 Introduction In this chapter we reveal the results of the case studies described in the previous section, importantly the case studies are conducted in a highly structured way, to allow an analysis in a set context (Table 10). First, the case study selection justification is outlined, secondly the case studies are reviewed followed by a description and analysis of each building, which are the subject of common repair problems (Appendix A, 1.0), and finally the results of interview data collated from the concentration of case study participants with additional interview data collated from key industry stakeholders who have an influence on skills development of stonemasons (Appendix A, 2.0). Project
1A
(Duntarvie
Castle),
Winchburgh, West Lothian Project 1B (Edinburgh College of Art), located in Edinburgh city centre Key Stakeholders in case studies Key Stakeholders in training capacity A.
Architect
without
conservation E. Stone Contractor
accreditation B.
RIBA
Accredited
Conservation F. Training Organisation/FE
Architect C. Client
G. Governmental Agency Table 10.Key Stakeholders Interviewed
To help concentrate on the main objectives of this research and facilitate analysis of the qualitative data, the interviews were recorded, for two purposes; corroboration that the analysis is an accurate record of the interview and full concentration can be given, as they were conducted as a series of open-ended questions supplemented by additional questioning in response to answers provided (Table 11).
35
Theme:
Case study no. of Training Total no. of Questions Stakeholder no. of stakeholders Questions interviewed
1.Project Background
3
0
3
Repair 3
0
3
3.Challenges Facing 2 Refurbishment of Historic Building
2
6
4. Challenges Facing 4 Stonemasonry Skills Development
6
6
2.Masonry Problems
Table 11.Case study and Training stakeholder Interviews: themes and no. of questions The schedules and transcripts of the interviews of the case studies can be found in Appendix B; the schedules and transcripts from interviews of key stakeholders in training are in Appendix C. 4.2 Case study justification The case studies were selected to show a range of levels of skill development on different building types from separate architectural eras, to ease collection logistically, the two case studies chosen are located in the East of Scotland. Their purpose is to identify common repair problems to traditional and contemporary stone practice, establish the causes of these repair problems, evaluate why they have occurred, and determine if a lack of skills development in stonemasonry construction and repair technology contributes to these problems. 4.3 Duntarvie Castle – 16th century A’ listed building 4.3.1 Project Background This case example examines the common repair problems at Duntarvie Castle, a Scheduled Monument and a category A listed building. Duntarvie Castle is typical of a very late 16th and early mid-17th century fortified country house in Scotland (Dunbar, 1966) (Figure 19).
The construction is traditional rubble stone mass masonry
chamfered dressed stone surrounds to openings.
36
Figure 19. North and South Elevation Architectural impression (2010) A private investor purchased the building in 1990 and is currently undertaking the consolidation and preservation of this historical structure, to enable reconstruction works (Burra Charter, 1998), returning the building to a known earlier state, in this case the 18th century. The intention of the client is to bring Duntarvie Castle back in to use as corporate headquarters (Figure 20) but as the building has lost much of its original fabric, new materials will have to be introduced to allow the building to become reinstated and functional.
Figure 20.Duntarvie Castle Development: Architectural impression (2010) 4.3.2 Common Repair Problems To undertake comprehensive stabilisation and reconstruction of the building, a firm of local architects and structural engineers were contracted to carry out a condition survey and oversee the works. The building exterior was fully scaffolded to shore up the walling and to allow close hand investigation of the masonry repair problems (Figure 21).
37
Figure 21. Reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010) Duntarvie Castle was found to have suffered from a lack of maintenance and continual neglect; even when previous repairs were carried out they were subjected to poor practice (bad workmanship and inappropriate use of materials). The subsequent impact, in conjunction with exposure to the elements over an extended period of time, and has led to the spectrum of common repair defects (Table 12). (i) Masonry Repair Problem
(ii) Proposed Masonry Solution
(iii)
Cement repairs and pointing
(iv)
Open joints
Repair
Remove stone in-fill to windows and doorways.
(v)
Carefully rake out and re-point 100% of building using natural hydraulic lime.
(vi)
Stone Deterioration
suitably matched stone
(vii)
(viii) Structural cracking (ix)
Cut out and indent stone with
matched replacement, in addition
bowing and leaning, separation of walls, cracked lintols
38
Replace stone with appropriate
insert stainless steel ties.
Lime mortar grouting
Underpinning of foundations
Stainless steel stitching to cracked lintols
(x) Stone re-construction
Supply and fix new stone, re-use existing stone
Take down and re-build
Table 11.Project 1A Masonry Problems and Solutions The repair problems we have selected for investigation are; cement repairs and a previous structural repair. However, as these common problems occur over a variance of the building, it is our decision, to concentrate on two sections. For that reason we have chosen, the West Gable/Tower and the South Elevation highlighted on (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Proposed Floor plan: reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010) Cement Repairs Various areas of the South elevation had been re-pointed in impermeable cement mortar and masonry fabric deterioration had occurred; visible signs of stone decay with open voids to the walling joints. A number of windows and doorways had been blocked up with stone in fill panels built using hard cement mortar. Added to this issue, the repairs had been executed carelessly as the stone infill had been built almost flush with either the window rybats or the decorative stonework surrounds (Figure 23).
39
Figure 23. Stone infill panels to doorway and windows on North Elevation The current stonemasonry contractor is presently carefully raking out and re-pointing these areas by hand with an appropriate lime mortar that has been analysed and specifically designed by the Scottish Lime Centre, after the project manager had taken a number of representative samples from various elevations. Although, part of the original contract was to carry out selective re-pointing to identified areas, it was decided to carry out a 100% campaign of re-pointing, owing to the number of incidences of cement repair, triggering an increase in project planning, programming and costs. Structural An upper part of the West Gable elevation, originally supported by a pre-stressed concrete lintol and 100mm concrete block with a few engineering bricks built on top of a substantial archway, which only a few of the original voussoirs remained, along with the springing stones to span the 3m opening, to form a rudimentary similar shape of the hanging stonework, but for some reason this was only done to one side, has collapsed (Figure 24). As a consequence of poor practice, and disregard to taking a holistic approach to repair, the upper wall may have been supported, but the wall head at this section remained uncovered and open to the environment, aiding the ability of moisture penetration to penetrate open joints where the mortar has failed, and vegetation (ivy growth) established a strong foothold causing further separation from the South elevation, as the complete disintegration of formerly sound masonry fabric had allowed the ivy growth to displace stones, therefore impacting on the already precarious structural integrity.
40
Figure 24. Poor structural repair Stones that were in a precarious position were taken down and set aside for re-use. Under current legislation (SHEP, 2011) SMC required that a firm of archaeologists be employed to make a record of the remaining part of the West gable, to allow exact repositioning of stones (Figure 25), likewise, further re-building was carried out on the South elevation as the work proceeded on the West gable (Figure 26) inflicting additional project costs. .
Figure 25. Archaeological recording of West Gable; reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2010)
41
Figure 26. Exterior view of current re-building works to West Gable and South elevation 4.4 Edinburgh College of Art- 20th century 4.4.1 Project Background This case study examines the 1972 built Hunter building, an academic learning space of the Edinburgh College of Art overlooking Lauriston Place, Edinburgh (Figure 27). A good example of a 1970’s concrete skeleton frame construction in filled with concrete block and clad with 100mm Lochabriggs stone, a red ashlar sandstone. The building is part of the University’s historic building stock of 116 properties and repairs are being carried out as part of a concerted R&M campaign across the University’s campus. A specialist RIBA conservation architect was contracted to specify and also oversee the works. Originally the stonemasonry contractor was to only carry out a 100% campaign of raking out and re-pointing in conjunction with isolated areas of stone replacement to the masonry fabric (Figure 28).
Figure 27. Plan of Edinburgh College of Art and Hunter Building: reproduced with permission from project Architects (2012)
42
Figure 28.Elevation drawing of initial fabric repairs: reproduced with permission from Project Architects (2012) 4.4.2 Common Repair Problems To undertake a comprehensive survey and specification of repair of the building, a specialist RIBA conservation architect carried out a detailed condition survey. The already scaffolded building allowed a close hand investigation of the masonry repair problems, which were indicative to all elevations of the building (Table 12). Masonry Repair Problem
Masonry Repair Solution
Cement/Polysulphide mastic
Carefully rake out and re-point using natural hydraulic lime
Open joints Plastic Repairs Stone Deterioration
Cut out and indent stone with suitably matched stone
Structural cracking
Cut out and replace with appropriate matched stone, insert additional stainless steel ties.
Stone Fracturing
Cut out and replace 1500 l/m of with appropriate matched stone replacement, supported on stainless steel angles, dowelling of upper stonework.
Table 12. Project 1B Masonry Repair Problems and Solutions
43
Cement Repairs Previous cement repairs and the utilisation of polysulphide mastic pointing (Table 12), as materials for maintenance, has created detrimental effects on the stone performance and prohibited its ability to breathe which has subsequently led to stone deterioration. Structural Initially most of the structural problems remained hidden and on first inspection, as the R&M programme was to concentrate on window replacement to all elevations, but during installation of the windows, the contractor jolted a section of ashlar walling above the window leading to an incidence of falling masonry (Table 12). An in depth survey indicated there were signs that this could occur to all windows and doorways; “a disaster waiting to happen” according to all stake holders and a decision was made to replace over 1500 l/m of ashlar stone. Instead of corbel plates being used at floor level to transfer the weight of the stonework back to the structure, the stones were checked around the floor slab creating a 50mm over hang, and as the stone used Locharbriggs, appears to have suffered fracturing along its bedding plane causing the detached areas to fall off (Table 13).
Structural cracking has occurred across all elevations of the building and led to the subsequent compromise of the structural integrity of the stone cladding.
Further
displacement has caused opening of mortar joints to the facades, leading to a loss of material, further moisture penetration and possible corrosion to the concrete frame. This has been caused by an absence of steel ties as well as wrong positioning of ties which has led to rotation of the stone. The original “fishtail” ties used, were built into beds of the concrete block work with a 10mm s/s dowel into the stone (Figure 29), in a pattern of 1 tie per stone. This insufficiency has caused the stones to rotate horizontally creating an imbalance of stresses leading to tension being placed on the stone, and various studies have recognised; stone is weak in tension (Ashurst and Dimes, 1998, Ashurst and Ashurst, 1998). In some areas the original ties are failing due to insufficient of depth of tie placement into the mortar beds of the backing wall, coupled with the holes for the dowels drilled too spacious for sufficient restraint, allowing overt movement of stone. Alarmingly, the cill course and at least one course of cladding under the windows were found to have no physical tie back to the block work.
44
Table 13. Common Repair Defects
Figure 29. Example of “fishtail” tie
45
4.5 Case Studies Analysis Both these case studies identified common repair problems; lack of maintenance, and poor practice, surrounding two common repair issues (structural, and masonry fabric) as captured in the literature (Powys, 1929, Brereton, 1991, Fieldman, 2003 and Beckmann and Boules, 2004). It is clearly evident they impacted negatively on both case studies performance through a number of common repair defects (stone/fabric deterioration, and structural cracking/movement/collapse).
Although the repair solutions were
relatively straight forward, it is crucial, to achieve quality workmanship, ideally only craftspeople who can demonstrate the necessary skills should be employed as successful R&M. is significantly dependent on the skills of those engaged to carry out the work on site. Unfortunately, this had also created project challenges, when interviewed, the respondents contested that, as a by-product, project budget, sourcing suitably experienced craftsman, and project management/programming, had been affected. While two stakeholders cited the limitation of hidden problems that were not apparent at first inspection, interestingly one respondent remarked that the current tendering process, is based on “economics and not on who is most suitable qualified or experienced to carry out the work”, and believed that this was an issue which required a return to contractor selection based on the length and breadth of previously gained knowledge and experience of stone repairs. This concept is valid, as overwhelmingly all three respondents were in agreement, by offering the consensus, that a lack of quality regarding workmanship, specification, maintenance, design, and combined with environmental conditions were the common problems (Ashurst and Dimes, 1998, Ashurst and Ashurst, 1998). Nonetheless, the respondents felt that each issue alone was not the “catalyst for the repair problems”, but that it was due to a combination of these effects, and also inferred that in their experience these problems were “very typical when dealing with historic buildings”. Project 1A provides evidence of this fact, as damage to adjacent masonry fabric was inevitable as cement pointing was carried out poorly, applied to the faces of the stonework, making it extremely difficult to remove, and in this case, trapping moisture causing disintegration, specifically of the substrate, in the form of sanding (ICOMOS, 2008), to the decorative stone surrounds. While for Project 1B cement was wrongly specified as the material of choice for the building mortar and had ultimately failed. Therefore we can assume cement use, was for; Project 1A dictated by necessity 46
rather than dutiful qualitative care, while Project 1B’s original specification was designed by economics rather than appropriateness. For example, Maxwell (2007) insisted, for decades stonemasons, builders, and professionals in their approach to masonry fabric repair, believed that cement’s strength would ensure that the buildings would last for all eternity. This belief, is unsurprisingly this is still taking place across the central belt of Scotland despite the relatively well known and well documented detrimental effects of cement on stone decay (Gibbons, 2003, SSLG, 2006, and Forster, 2011b). Nonetheless, both case studies support the view offered by the literature review that a lack of stonemasonry knowledge is responsible, in particular the lack of knowledge regarding the stone application and specification, and the two basic decay mechanisms induced by cement repairs ; soluble salts and restricting the masonry wall fabric’s ability to breathe (TSLC, 2003). Self-evidently, Project 1A’s original poor practice had led to a collapse further exacerbating existing structural cracking, therefore it was wholly unjustifiable from the outset, in terms of workmanship and specification, and furthermore it was likely carried out by a contractor who lacked the technical knowledge and expertise of stonemasonry, in particular solid masonry construction. Indeed, HS (2010) alerted that current FE content expressed, a distressingly lack of relevancy towards traditional repair and maintenance of the built heritage, reflecting that current content, only expresses 41% of an industry wish list of traditional skills, and if appropriate repairs to the built heritage are to be provided this situation requires addressing. As one stakeholder noted it had caused an installation impact, with difficulty in “finding experienced contractors, in this type of work”, but this could be attributed to the unique nature of the project in question and the limitations of historic building legislation as mentioned by two respondents. For example, SMC procedure of recording, removing and re-positioning stones in the exact previous position. Nevertheless, poor practice raised the spectre of lack of skills development as a contributory factor and highlighted the need for appropriate training, due to the high level of skill and knowledge required to successfully accomplish masonry repair (Powys, 1929, Brereton, 1991, Fieldman, 2003 and Beckmann and Boules, 2004). Subsequently, if we assume that Project 1B was constructed at a time when Architects and craftsmen were learning on the job as to how things went together, it is safe to say that a few design and specification problems were inherent with the building from inception, as according to Architect B from his own experience at the time, 47
stonemasonry skills were “at a low ebb with regards availability and knowledge of new construction technology for stone” unlike the literature that demonstrates there is an abundance of current knowledge surrounding modern stonemasonry practice; namely natural stone cladding (Urquhart, 2008). Therefore, it is conceivable to assume it was inevitable that common repair problems would arise, evidently observable with the fixing system failing, resulting in a number of falling masonry incidents, as well as further typical structural cracking. Yet all respondents emphasised that common repair problems (lack of maintenance and poor practice) whilst being of traditional skills origins both case studies required the use of advanced stonemasonry practice and understood that not disregarding modern materials and methods was key to appropriate solutions. Contrastingly, the literature review articulates that the primary focus for eradicating common repair problems ought to be skills development i.e. improve the quality and performance of repair. This viewpoint has value as both case studies have highlighted to achieve these ideals, there is an inherent need for appropriate training as it is clearly evident that a high level of skill and in depth knowledge of stonemasonry (traditional and modern) is required for successful R&M., because of the bespoke nature of built heritage projects. Perhaps this reflects the earlier point that quality, performance and effectiveness is imperative, not only to convey governmental direction in historic building R&M. of the built heritage, but also to explain the rationale behind stonemasonry skills development, and so remove misconceptions. 4.6 Key Challenges Facing Refurbishment of Historic Building Four respondents deemed funding and education/training as a prime challenge (Appendix A, Question 2 & 7) in facing historic building R&M., while three offered a lack of knowledge and skills across all levels as a challenge, as one indicated that this was also requirement by specifiers stating “building professionals when specifying stone repairs, lack the knowledge of the complexities involved with R&M. of a historic building”. However, this could explain why two respondents remarked that a key challenge was to adopt an inter-disciplinary approach to specification, to which one respondent agreed with this and commented an often typical inference from the building professional was that they sought “a top dollar job but are only wanting to pay dimes” and tend to have an over-inflated expectation of what the project budget can deliver. This presents a contradiction, in terms of, how can quality be achieved if contract
48
management is placing barriers in this form to successful R&M., before work has commenced. Five of the six replies articulated that the skills development of stonemasons is a principal conundrum for all stakeholders involved in historic building R&M., as one respondent noted “raising the quality of craftsman involved in R&M is essential because if the workforce is under-qualified the building suffers”, yet two respondents noted for this to take place, the challenge of recruitment requires addressing, but as one respondent pointed out a perception change to stonemasonry as a valued career as a key challenge. However, they confirmed they were fully aware of the significance of the current skills deficiency, paradoxically one respondent initially remarked no as “genuinely from a company perspective it is not an issue”, part in fact, to being a proactive employer regarding skills development, intimating they endeavoured to employ at least two apprentices a year and see skills development as a lifeblood of the company. However, when questioned on a wider context, observed “due to the loss of two of the main stonemasonry (each with over 100 years knowledge and expertise) there will be detrimental impact because of the massive void left from their demise”.
Curiously,
only one respondent conclusively answered no, the reason being they “looked at the availability of suitably qualified stonemasons and found in general the skill level was appropriate”, nonetheless two respondents raised the challenge of creating a database of reputable companies, unsurprisingly it was a consistent idea as two respondents called for the improvement of the pre-planning stage of a project which gives a clearer indication that in fact there is a need for a determination of qualified stonemasons echoed in the literature review. The literature review highlighted a number of main challenges (extent of repair, social, cultural, technological, education/training, employment) facing historic building R&M. reflecting a desire to improve the quality, performance and effectiveness of R&M., all within the context of the Government’s strategies and targets for preserving the built heritage (SHEP, 2011, and HS, 2011). Interestingly, only one stakeholder referred to enhanced quality as a challenge, with the other stakeholders highlighting either performance or efficient use of skill resources as primary questions for appropriate repair interventions. The stimulus for R&M. in the built heritage environment ought to be to enhance the building’s lifespan, i.e. improve the quality and performance of repair. Undeniably, SSLG (2006) warn against continual negligence of historic buildings as a way to react 49
to the built heritage, reflecting that it can cause an excessive amount of deterioration to the building performance and in time lead to numerous impacts (e.g. economic, abilty to service demand). Similarly, a report by Hyslop (2004) echoed SSLG’s views by stating that if stakeholders believe that disregarding this three pronged approach towards historic building repair, conservation and restoration will protect them from hidden costs, then they will be sorely disappointed (SSLG, 2006, and SCHS, 2010). The replies from the respondents suggest that both case study stakeholders and the training stakeholders had a consistent idea amongst their own group of the key challenges facing refurbishment of historic buildings (education/training, and funding) not dissimilar to the literature and were homogeneous in their view that skills development of stonemasons was a major issue. Intriguingly, the importance of each challenge seems to have been driven by the respondent’s current role and background, particularly as case study respondents had remarked funding as a key challenge, whereas stakeholders involved in a training capacity unanimously indicated education/training as a key challenge.
However, in reality the plethora of
key
challenges offered by respondents indicates the recurring mantra that there is a greater need for appreciation of the R&M. sector from stakeholders in general, as synopsised by the worrying statistics of the SHCS (2010) report, but as one respondent philosophically stated, to alleviate this problem that there needs to be a “cultural shift in how the built heritage sector is perceived” further emphasising HS’s, (2012) conclusion that if property owners understood the value, both the cultural and financial benefits, more work would be delivered which would increase the supply, demand and provision for traditional stonemasonry skills 4.7 Skills Development of Stonemasons When posed questions surrounding skills development, the respondents, denoted in brackets, offered a number of the following as challenges; recruitment/retention (3), flexible and integrated response from industry and FE to the skill supply (2), awarding of local contracts to local contractors (1) and better regulation of industry coupled with better communication (2), database of reputable companies, and provision of an up-todate technical handbook (2). Unsurprisingly, four respondents remarked equally, there was also a need and opportunity to increase education/training both at a professional and craft level as employers expressly highlighted this as a key concern, but for this to occur the main challenge was to create demand (4). Six respondents overwhelming replied that above all else the main skill requirement was to provide skills development 50
in the form of traditional stonemasonry cutting and building techniques to enable successful refurbishment of Scotland’s historic stone fabric, nonetheless, currently stonemasonry is only serviced by four FE colleges, although a small number of private training providers deliver basic stonemasonry courses, due to the fact to become a stonemason, the individual must be employed by a company engaged in stonemasonry. While regarding opportunities five respondents indicated that currently there was an opportunity to change the perception of the sector, correspondingly six respondents offered, there was a potential to change current recruitment strategies and believe that by “adopting a stronger perspective on training, promote career development, will in turn create a better appreciation of the skills required”. For such an evolution, a clearly delineated ability for career progression, one respondent proposed a strategy to “promote the craft as a valued alternative to academia”. Three respondents are well aware that for this to take place, as they indicated that from their perspective as employers, the recruitment and retention of skilled stonemasons is “vital in order to provide a current response to skills supply”. Whereas three stakeholders called for a flexible response to the skills supply and four respondents hoped for an integration of the stonemasonry industry to “create a better dialogue between all stakeholders in the sector” while, two respondents viewed the creation of demand as a central challenge for skills development (not mentioned by other key stakeholders). Although, all concerned readily understand the current apprenticeship framework, were aware there was an awarding body (SQA) for training standards in stonemasonry, distressingly there was a general unawareness from industry as to who was responsible for training standards, as three relies remarked “FE, but in reality they were unaware of who is responsible”. Fortunately, there was no consistent perception as to whether this had a positive or negative outcome, regrettably in reality, this is not the case as current FE stonemasonry apprenticeship content lacks substance towards R&M. This in part could explain why they offered it was not an increase in the amount of training that was required but a raising of the quality and response of stakeholders wishing to engage in stonemasonry skills development, which according to one reply will in turn provide “the opportunity to recruit the best/most suitable individuals”. All respondents regardless of their position within their organisations suggest this as an achievable prospect. Additionally, training stakeholders were posed two further questions, to which they responded the following; each respondent remarked current training practice was either, 51
an improvement, sufficient or in-adequate, hence it seemed illogical when two claimed the current skills development pathway was insufficient, although they commented “the need to shorten the skills pathway for more talented individuals” and compellingly, the pathway needs to be “national, not the current situation of different training provision between the UK”. The literature review highlighted a number of issues surrounding skills development with the main challenges, reflecting a number of skills development dynamics; traditional stonemasonry knowledge and skills, inappropriate apprenticeship content and disconcertingly, a lack of available data concerning qualified stonemason numbers (Hutton and Rostron, 1997, SSLG, 2006, NHTG, 2007, and HS, 2010). Contradictorily, the crucial focus for establishing stonemasonry skills development is to enhance the craftsman’s proficiency, and to improve the ability of stonemasonry application. Moreover, the literature reflected that high quality can be developed by education and training, and correspondingly, resonating the view training must move towards a demand led system.
4.8 Conclusion It should be appreciated that R&M. of the built heritage is a complex subject and that the above is not an attempt to explain R&M. or describe fully its operation or culture, but merely to place the study in context. The result from the case studies analysis and interview data reinforced the idea that masonry fabric defects, especially when it comes to R&M., require a high level of skill and in depth knowledge of stonemasonry which clearly indicates that a tripartite approach (quality, performance and effectiveness) is required in addressing common repair problems. In this way stonemasonry skills development, becomes an area of future research to explore the application of technology in stonemasonry practice, in addition to the use of technology in the delivery of stonemason training and application, thus directly and positively affecting the built heritage.
52
Chapter 5 – Conclusion 5.1 Introduction The overall of this research was to advance an understanding of stonemasonry in the built heritage environment, particularly in relation to historic building R&M. issues. The specific research objectives were, within the context of R&M., to: 1. To investigate historical stonemasonry practice, and identify the current role of stonemasonry. 2. Identify and, examine common repair problems and to what extent skills development is a contributory factor. 3. Explore key stakeholder views and issues related to R&M. of historic buildings, including challenges and barriers to stonemasonry skills development. 4. Develop recommendations for addressing common repair problems. This section will revisit the research objectives above, summarise the findings of this research work and offer conclusions based on the findings. Recommendations for future research will be discussed, in terms of how to progress this research study. Importantly, the contribution of this research to the skills development of stonemasons will be clarified. Additionally, a section reflecting on the research process that has been undertaken is included. By adopting this structure it is intended that the research work will be concluded so as to reflect on whether or not the objectives stated at the start of this research have been met, including consideration of the value of this study. 5.2 Research Objectives: Summary of Findings and Conclusions 5.2.1 Research Objective 1: Historical and current stonemasonry practice, and the extent of R&M. requirements. Summary of Findings The study of relevant stonemasonry practice related literature revealed that the subject of R&M. to historic buildings is a complex and technical landscape, due to the inherent relationship between the vernacular architectural style, stonemasonry skills and the geology of Scotland. The literature identified the main reasons why the practice of stonemasonry will not change dramatically, as the knowledge and skills is still gained hands on, through the observation of experienced stonemasons, mainly in the fields of restoration, and conservation, although experience and knowledge of MSP is becoming 53
an ever increasing application of R&M., owing to the sensitivity of developments in conservation areas, nonetheless the basic skills set required is similar. Yet a gap in the literature identified a distinct lack of in-depth technical training literature on traditional stonemasonry skills technology and its ability meet current quality and performance standards. Fortunately, there is a guide, for professionals and craftsmen alike, of the new functional standards and how successful reuse might be achieved (Urquhart, 2007), but contradictorily, widespread level of disrepair is occurring to masonry fabric of pre 1919 buildings in Scotland; 90% of traditional buildings (residential). Similarly, the non-residential stock is experiencing this phenomenon (SSLG, 2006, SHCS, 2010 and HS, 2012c) , yet the literature noted alarmingly, over £123 million had been awarded for R&M. of these types of buildings in the last ten years (HS, 2010) highlighting the gravity of the situation, which has created a major issue in servicing government strategy (HS, 2012c).
In the current economic climate, with the current desire to
preserve and improve (quality, performance and effectiveness) of the historic environment, this is improbable to sustain or even increase, therefore can only be achieved by employing the correct materials and those with the right skills and knowledge. Considering this perspective may help partly explain why the literature laments that for successful R&M., future demands will dictate the level of concerted effort exerted to realise the potential and necessity of updating research into the types of masonry repair required and stonemasonry techniques and methods. Paradoxically, HS may have a register of all heritage buildings, but frustratingly, on a local level, there is no definite data concerning stone built heritage needs. Currently, research is pursued by a small number of industry ‘advocates’ (Hyslop, 2004, SSLG, 2006, and HS, 2012a), and not mainstream academia, and their attempt to address this dilemma gave a deeper insight both on a micro and macro level, producing a number of perturbing findings albeit across a wider spectrum (economics, social, cultural, educational, technological, etc.). Conclusion The conclusion, and lesson, that can be drawn from this research on stonemasonry is not any dispute of it having a very close traditional relationship between, the local geology, and the vernacular architectural style and there exists much literature to educate those interested, but rather that [Conclusion 1] stonemasonry skills are a fundamental for successful R&M. to the built heritage, yet for this to transpire in reality, specific data of 54
the varying types of masonry repair requires to be ascertained. In other words to arrive at a deeper understanding of how industry are meeting the challenge of R&M. of historic buildings, there is a continuing need for empirical data observed ‘live’ and at the planning stage, specifically local in nature, in order to provide valuable data on quality, performance and effectiveness for a current response to disrepair, and this knowledge is essential in addressing current disrepair to Scotland’s built heritage stock, which can only be achieved by employing the correct materials and those with the right skills and knowledge. 5.2.2 Research Objective 2; Common repair problems; is skills development a contributory factor. Summary of Findings The literature identified the main common repair defects (structural, masonry fabric repair) and common problems (poor practice and poor maintenance) which in turn are caused by a number of skills development dynamics (lack of traditional stonemasonry knowledge and skills, lack of high quality craftsman and professionals and use of inappropriate material). Yet, in reality for industry, coherently, there is consistency between theory and practice as evidenced in the case studies. Those in involved in R&M. of the built heritage in a ‘live’ project (management and contracting), all felt that each identified common repair problems have impacted negatively on both case studies buildings performance and cost, and provided a consensus that while key training stakeholders, have a firm collective view of common repair problems and case study stakeholder intentions, case studies stakeholders may hold an in depth knowledge of why common repair problems occur. Yet, poor quality repair is still taking place across the central belt of Scotland, evidenced by both theory and practice, however, the literature review further identified the primary focus for skills development i.e. improve the quality of repair and reflecting that quality can be developed by education and training. Yet paradoxically there was a lack of available data concerning stonemasonry numbers and alarmingly, current stonemasonry apprenticeship content expressed a lack of relevancy towards R&M. of the built heritage. However, a heritage stonemasonry apprenticeship was established by industry, in conjunction with the NHTG in 2011, but unfortunately widespread knowledge of this option is low, as currently no FE College delivers this training programme, yet this can be partly explained by the expensive nature of stonemasonry training. 55
Therefore, considering the crucial focus for establishing stonemasonry skills development is to enhance the craftsman’s proficiency, and to improve the ability of stonemasonry application, the literature recognised that training, to gain industry credibility, ought to provide a coherent training and skills system to meet demand. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that in the interviews, again each set shows preference to their field of expertise, there was a consensus for a skills development rationale, which coincided into similar topics (traditional masonry technology knowledge, recruitment, and perception) despite the responses from the both groups intimating having individual perspectives. Similarly, the respondents advocated that the emerging concepts: traditional masonry technology knowledge, recruitment, and perception, are in their viewpoint critical to stonemasonry skills development and are a contributory factor in common repair problems in the context of R&M. and historic building longevity and durability. Partly clarifying why the literature expresses that skills development is a continual process, pursued by quality craftsmen and professionals alike and to some extent mainstream academia. Conclusion Permitting the viewpoint that there is poor understanding of traditional building construction forms and the consequences that these may have for determining building performance and quality of repair. The conclusion that can be drawn from this research on common repair problems is that [Conclusion 2] poor skills development were found as the key causes presented in the case studies ( Aberdour Castle, and Edinburgh College of Art). The lesson of these case studies appears to be, with respect to common repair problems (poor practice and poor maintenance), R&M ought not to be viewed as a straightforward and simple piece of technology. On the contrary, R&M. ought to be viewed as a natural part of being a stonemason as an advanced deployment of stonemasonry skills like stone cutting, and so stakeholders require guidance as well as time to learn about stonemasonry skills development.
56
5.2.3 Research Objective 3; Stakeholder views and issues Summary of Findings Key Challenges Facing R&M. of the Built Heritage The literature review highlighted a number of main challenges (extent of repair, social, cultural, technological, education/training, employment) and potential benefits (higher quality of specification and works and repair performance, etc.), confronting R&M.of historic buildings.
Respondents produced suggestions that coincided into similar
categories (education/training, funding, and recruitment) but the importance of each challenge seems to have been driven by the respondent’s current role and background and each set shows preference to their field of expertise, as a key issue. Yet training stakeholders only identified education/training and may not have a firm holistic view of the challenges. Nonetheless, the replies echoed current governmental strategy and policies, providing evidence that stakeholders are unified in their thoughts. Further collected data illuminates a possible paradigm that if building stock owners comprehended the cultural and financial benefits, more work would be delivered, which would be a catalyst for an increase in the supply, demand and provision for traditional stonemasonry skills. However, in order to provide a current response to skills supply at decision making levels within the stonemasonry application and training field, as one reply elicited, there is a need “create a better dialogue between all stakeholders in the sector, move away from the current fragmentation”. Summary of Findings Skills Development of Stonemasons The literature review signified an inherent need to advance the provision, and execution of stonemasonry skills, but was faced with three main skills dynamics (traditional stonemasonry knowledge and skills, inappropriate apprenticeship content and disconcertingly, a lack of available data concerning qualified stonemason numbers) in this quest. Consequently the literature established, the crucial focus for stonemasonry skills development in an R&M. environment, is to enhance the craftsman’s proficiency, and to improve the ability of stonemasonry application through the vehicle of education and training. Yet, in practice, the picture is not so clear, as evidence suggests, each respondent may have a coherent idea amongst their own organisation’s evaluation of the importance of 57
skills development challenges (traditional masonry technology knowledge, recruitment, perception, to a lesser degree a flexible/integrated industry), and readily understand the current framework for training standards in stonemasonry, but distressingly, there was a general unawareness from industry, as to who was responsible for training standards. They either did not see any benefits for them or were concerned or cautious, or similarly as one respondent despondently remarked there was “too much industry fragmentation in skills development, as organisations have varying agendas” giving credence to the replies who strenuously added, it was not an increase in the amount of training but a raising of the quality and response of stakeholders wishing to engage in stonemasonry skills development that was relevant and suggested this as an achievable prospect. Conclusion The context of this study is implemented, in case studies, stakeholder self-perceptions, and aspirations, therefore the [Conclusion 3] that can be drawn from this research suggest that although both case study stakeholders and the training stakeholders had a consistent idea amongst their own group of the key challenges facing refurbishment of historic buildings and were consistent in their view that skills development of stonemasons was a major issue, it is clear that an integrated approach in philosophy (quality, performance and effectiveness) combined with tenacious action is required across all facets from the perspective of the craftsmen, to the professional field and all other stakeholders in the stonemasonry skills industry. The lesson to be learned is that such views may be complicated by imperatives to integrate R&M. into skills development without the rationale being discussed with, or explained to, stakeholders. These case studies stand as an example of how stonemasonry skills development can impact R&M as whole and directly affect the durability and functionality of the building. 5.3 Recommendations [Conclusion 1] stonemasonry is a fundamental for successful R&M. to the built heritage, yet for this to transpire in reality, specific data of the varying types of masonry repair requires to be ascertained. In other words to arrive at a deeper understanding there is a continuing need for empirical data observed locally ‘live’ and at the planning stage, in order to provide valuable data for a current response to disrepair, essential in addressing current disrepair to Scotland’s built heritage stock.
58
From Conclusion 1, the first recommendation to be made is that micro studies of each region of Scotland are established, defining stone built heritage needs; specifically common repair problems, labour supply, demand and localised training, and the external factors that are influencing industry organisations decisions to engage in successful repair interventions. This recommendation would have a number of benefits. Firstly, industry, would understand collectively what the main challenges are for R&M. locally, the importance of stonemasonry to R&M., the available opportunities to their organisations, as well as training and government, so they would be in a much better position to eradicate poor practice.
Further, completed research should be clearly
communicated and be easy to find (whether it be on a website, or published format). In effect, the answer lies not within one sector be it: education/training, demand, supply, provision, but within a concerted integration between all parties presently or in the future to determine the strengths and weaknesses that should either be emulated or avoided in a new system. Conclusion 2 stated that a lack of traditional stonemasonry skills development is part of the confused picture for the reason behind why the stock of Scotland’s built heritage is in its current state of disrepair. From Conclusion 2, it is recommended that industry should be aware of why they are engaging in skills development, the benefits to R&M. and, importantly they need to ensure that stonemasonry skills development is clear, justified in rationale and communicated to those charged with integrating R&M. in a ‘live’ project environment i.e. industry.
Communicating the rationale (quality,
performance, and effectiveness) to R&M. would remove any misunderstandings of repair intentions and may help avoid cynical guesswork. Importantly, from Conclusions 1 and 2 (common repair problems and skills development (main conclusions), the recommendation from conclusion 3; both case study stakeholders and the training stakeholders had a consistent idea amongst their own group of the key challenges facing refurbishment of historic buildings and were consistent in their view that skills development of stonemasons was a major issue. Therefore, to encourage stakeholders to become involved in skills development, a reward in the form of all stakeholders receive industry focused R&M. training aimed specifically at preparing skills development, in a structured way, to advance R&M., both in terms of quality, and performance, is made available. The recommendations are diagrammatically represented in Figure 21. This diagram conveys the essence of the conclusions and recommendations, underlining that each of
59
the recommendations flow to provide a sensible framework which the R&M. sector can adopt to prepare their participants for skills development. First, the sector should develop micro studies stone built heritage into its skills development strategy. This strategy should be readily accessible to all stakeholders, supported by a strategic definition of the term R&M., details of the challenges to be adopted (e.g training, common repair problems.), including a rationale (e.g. quality, performance, etc.), of why the sector wishes to become involved in skills development. Next, this strategy should be communicated to all stakeholders, public and private with a part to play in shaping the direction of stonemasonry skills development. Following that, industry should receive relevant training on stonemasonry R&M. This research showed that the main type of skills development necessary to stakeholders for R&M.: technical training (material specification knowledge as well as necessary stonemasonry skills); There was a great deal of evidence to show that technical training is still in the majority vocational and that perhaps a multi-disciplinary methodology to training is required.
Figure 30. Diagrammatic Relationship between recommendations 5.5 Further Research The literature review demonstrated that historic stone building R&M. is broad, yet the use of appropriate stonemasonry skills is variable and that there is an acute lack of indepth research of stonemasonry practices. As every research project has the capacity for enhancement and development, therefore skills development is a growing concept in R&M, representing a new area of study. This study has concentrated only on repair problems relating to R&M. in the built heritage, signifying there is a wide range of issues that need to be investigated regarding application of stonemasonry skills, such further research would include:
60
Exploring and investigating the dynamic role, adaptability and capability of technology for skills development to improve quality, performance and effectiveness.
Identifying and investigating the influences of sustainability, on the provision, and execution of stonemasonry skills and knowledge.
Identifying and investigating the key success factors for applying traditional skills (stonemasonry) to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy.
5.5 Reflection on the Dissertation Process In an attempt, to highlight stonemasonry skills and sustainability, the (first) research topic was Stonemasonry Skills for Scotland in an Advanced Technological Society, however the idea of a connection between the two was vague, and as linking R&M., skills development and sustainability was problematic. This created a problem with focus of the research, causing a lack of enthusiasm. Therefore it was decided early on to discard this initial work, however a new research topic developed from the vestiges. Therefore, the research focus was changed to accommodate the researchers undeniable interest in skills development while also to make the research scope manageable within the time constraints of the dissertation. A valuable piece of advice, therefore is to choose a subject that can be enjoyed, rather than what appears to be in-vogue, perhaps ground-breaking, as the process has taken up a large part of my life.
However,
bringing together a vocation in the built heritage on R&M.; apprentice, former employer; part of the core business values was to employ apprentices and continual upgrading of skills and knowledge, and currently stonemasonry lecturer, was an exciting prospect, as stonemasonry skills development is an area that will have a huge impact on successful historic building R&M. of the built heritage. Another valuable piece of advice is to realise that when writing a dissertation, it is a continual process of analysis and evaluation. For example, in some instances after writing and investigating historic building R&M, when locating further relevant research to several sections, although time consuming, they would be incorporated into the draft writings, allowing the research work to evolve even at an advanced stage or near completion.
Although, problematic in terms of time, in some instances a
significant re-think was considered, but it was beneficial and gave a freshness to the work, making it as up-to-date as possible as the subject matter R&M. is a vast area.
61
Similarly, when reading over the work at points, it is difficult to offer constructive criticism, due to the personal closeness of the work. This gradually became harder, the further one immersed in this research, and the more difficult it became to be objective. Initially, the literature review chapter was, unbalanced in that it was biased towards statement of fact rather than discussion of evidence for philosophical review. Fortunately, my professor offered a tip; take a break for a couple of days, re-engage, and try to evaluate what had been written, by approaching how the discussion appeared and whether it had any justification related to the selected text. This approach certainly encouraged objectivity and at the same time improved the flow of the work. The case studies required careful planning, as they were ‘live’ projects and required careful selection and organising. For example, for the ease of surveys, it was decided to use industry contacts and select appropriate buildings within the context of the research. As for the interviews, because of the ‘live project aspect working out an appropriate timescale, the thematic structure of the interviews (based on issues from the literature review), the questions to ask within those themes, and also in terms of how to analyse the data. Despite such planning an essential part is to have a contingency, as problems do arise in any plan. For example, during one interview the respondent had to stop the interview due to work commitments. One has to admit this can happen especially in ‘live’ projects and simply re-do that part of the interview. Fortunately, this research has accomplished its overall aim of procuring a clearer insight of historic building R&M. and skills development, common repair problems, and key stakeholder views. Yet limitations of this research work are conceded despite the industry wide roles of several key stakeholders, the case studies; 1. Not illustrative of all organisations involved in R&M. 2. The research cannot be taken as an indicative representation what happens across Scotland in R&M. projects Yet, as a reflective practitioner of traditional building skills specialising in stonemasonry, in particular diagnosing and applying appropriate masonry repairs to the built heritage, which appears to be not taking place wholeheartedly (literature review). Taking this into consideration the research did not attempt to mislead or misrepresent the results. The only intention was to provide further researchers areas of interest and perhaps, an increase in comprehension of the challenged topics in this work will occur, adding to the cultivation of stonemasonry and R&M. research.
62
References/Bibliography Agapiou, A., Price, Andrew, D.F. and McCaffer, R. (1995) Planning future construction skill requirements: under- standing labour resource issues. Construction Management and Economics, vol. 13, 1995, pp149-161. Clarke, L and Herrmann, G (2007) Divergent divisions of construction labour: Britain and Germany. In: A. Dainty, S. Green, and B. Bagilhole, (eds.). "People and Culture in Construction: A reader": Taylor & Francis. Oxon Ashurst, J. and Ashurst, N., (1988) Practical Building Conservation, English Heritage Technical Handbook Volume 1: Stone Masonry. London: English Heritage. Ashurst, J. and Dimes, F.G. eds. (1990). Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone: Volume 1. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Australia ICOMOS (1999) The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Victoria: Australia ICOMOS. Beckmann, P., and Bowles, R. (2004). Structural Aspects of Building Conservation (2nd ed.). Elsevier Butterworth. Oxford Bell, D. (1997). The Historic Scotland Guide to International Conservation Charters. TAN 8. Historic Scotland. Biggam, J (2007) Succeeding with Your Master’s Dissertation; A step-by-step handbook Open University Press. Berkshire Brereton, C. (1991) Brereton, C. (1991) The Repair of Historic Buildings: Advice on Principles and Methods. English Heritage. London British Standards Institute (1998) 7913:1998. Guide to the Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings. BSI, London University Press. Volume 21, Number 2. pp. 157-168 Cassar, M. (2009) Sustainable Heritage: Challenges and Strategies for the Twenty-First Century.
In
APT
Bulletin:
Journal
of
Preservation
Technology
(40:1)
www.apti.org/publications / Past-Bulletin-Articles/Cassar-40-1.pdf [Accessed 13 Aug 2011] pp. 3-11. Changeworks (2011) Renewable Heritage; A Guide to Micro-generation in Traditional and Historic Homes. Changeworks Resources for Life 2009. Edinburgh Clarke, L. and Wall, C. (1998) UK construction skills in the context of European developments. Construction Management and Economics Vol. 16, 1998, pp. 553-567 Clarke, L., and Herrmann, G. (2007). "Divergent divisions of construction labour: Britain and Germany." People and Culture in Construction: A reader, A. Dainty, S. Green, and B. Bagilhole, eds., Taylor & Francis, Oxon, 85-105. 63
Ó’ Cathain, C. (Date Unknown) Designer Denial – the Dark Side of Architectural Practice.http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/CD_doNotOpe n/ADC/final_paper/537.pdf. School of Architecture, Queen’s University, Belfast, Ireland Condit.W,C (1969) Technology and Culture. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 307-309 Construction Industry Training Board (2012) National Occupational Standards. http://www.citb.co.uk/en-GB/Qualifications-Standards/national-occupationalstandards/national-occupational-standards-suites/stonemasonry/ accessed 5/5/2013 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (1994) Structural Renovation of Traditional buildings Report 111, (reprinted 1986 ed. with update amendments). Construction Industry Research and Information Association. London Cruickshank, D. and Wyld, P. (1975) London: The Art of Georgian Building Architectural Press .London Dainty, A.R.J., Ison, S.G. and Root, D.S. (2005) Averting the construction skills crisis: a regional approach. Local Economy, 20(1), pp. 79–89. Dainty, A (2008) Methodological pluralism in construction management research. In: Knight, A and Ruddock, L (eds.) Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment. Wiley & Blackwell. Oxford. pp1-12 Daniels, C. (2012) The Craft of Stonemasonry. Crowood Press, Wiltshire Davey, A. (1988) The Care and Conservation of Georgian Houses: a Maintenance Manual for Edinburgh New Town. Butterworth Architecture. Oxford Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA Dunbar, J. G. (1966) Historic Architecture of Scotland. Batsford, London Feilden, B.M. (2003) Conservation of Historic Buildings, 3rd Ed. Butterworth. Elsevier Butterworth. Oxford Firestone, W A (1987) Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative qualitative research. Education Researcher, Volume 16, Iss;7. Pp.16-21. Forster, A.M. (2010a), "Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 1 – “ethics”". Structural Survey, Vol. 28, Iss: 2, pp.91 – 107. Forster, A.M. (2010b), “Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 2 – ‘principles’. Structural Survey, Vol. 28, Iss. 3, pp. 165-88.
64
Forster A.M., Carter, K., Banfill, P.F.G, Kayan B. (2011a) Green Maintenance for historic buildings: an emerging concept. Building Research and Information, 39(6), pp. 656-664 Forster, A.M. and Carter, K. (2011b), “A framework for specifying natural hydraulic lime mortars for masonry construction”, Structural Survey, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 373-96. Gibbons, P. (2003) The Preparation and Use of Lime Mortars: Technical Advice Note 1. Edinburgh. Historic Scotland Forster, A.M., Kennedy, C.J., Hyslop et al, (2012),"Plastic" repair of natural stone in Scotland: perceptions and practice". Structural Survey, Vol. 30 Iss: 4 pp. 297 - 311 Frankfort-Nachrnias, C, & Nachmias, D. (1996) Research Methods in the Social Sciences 5th ed. St. Martin's Press. New York Glendinning, M., MacInnes, R. and, MacKechnie, A (1996) A History of Scottish Architecture: From the Renaissance to the Present Day. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (1997) Defining and Describing the Paradigm: Issue in Mixed-Method Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. Iss; 74, pp 5-7 Harper, R.N. (1985) Victorian Building Regulations Mansell Information Publishing Ltd. London Henry, A. (2007) Stone Conservation; Principles and Methods. Donhead Publishing Ltd, Dorset Hill, P.R., and David, J.C.E. (1995) Practical Stone Masonry. Donhead Publishing Ltd, Dorset Historic Scotland (2011) Scottish Historic Environment Policy. APS Group Scotland Historic Scotland (2012a) Scotland’s Historic Environment Audit (SHEA). APS Group Scotland Historic Scotland (2012b) Traditional Building Skills Strategy. APS Group Scotland Historic Scotland (2012c) Establishing the Need for Traditional Skills. Historic Scotland. Edinburgh Historic Scotland (2012) Focus; Informing the Conservation of the Built Environment. Historic Scotland. Edinburgh. http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/es/focus-magazine2012.pdf, downloaded 15/05/2013 Hull, D. (2003) Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Art: Geometric Aspects. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool Hutton and Rostron (1997) Report: A Future for Stone in Scotland. Historic Scotland. Edinburgh. 65
Hyslop, Ewan K. (2004) The performance of replacement sandstone in the New Town of Edinburgh. Historic Scotland Research Report. Historic Scotland. Edinburgh Hyslop, E.K., and McMillan, A.A. (2004) Replacement sandstone in the Edinburgh World Heritage Site: problems of source and supply. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, Volume 2, ed. Daniel Kwiatkowski, and Runo Löfvendahl: 777-784. Stockholm: ICOMOS, Sweden Hyslop, E. K., McMillan, A. A., and Maxwell, I. (2006b) Stone in Scotland. Earth Science Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, International Association of Engineering Geology, Queen’s Printer for Scotland, British Geological Survey. Hyslop, E.K and McMillan, A.A. (2007) Our Crumbling Buildings. Earthwise, 25. 3031. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/4192/ accessed 21/05/2013 ICOMOS-ISCS (2008) Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns. ICOMOSInternational Documentation Centre, Paris. Jordan, F. M. (1969) Western Architecture, A Concise History. Thames and Hudson, London Kappia, J. G., Dainty, A. R. J. and Price, A. D. F. (2005) Towards a qualitative career development agenda. Association of Researchers in construction (ARCOM) Doctoral Workshop on skills, Training and Development in the construction industry held at School of the Built Environment Northumbria University. Leitch Review of Skills (2006), Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills. H M Treasury Love, P.E.D. and Bullen, P.A. (2009) Toward the sustainable adaption of existing facilities. Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 357-67. Maxwell, I. (2007) Repointing Rubble Stonework; Inform Guide. Historic Scotland. Edinburgh Mariano, C. (2000). Case study: the method. Chapter 10. In P. Munhall & C. Oiler Boyd, Eds. Nursing Research. A Qualitative Perspective, 2nd ed. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Sudbury, MA, pp. 311-337. McMillan, A.A. (1997) Quarries of Scotland. Historic Scotland Technical Advice Note 12. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh McMillan, A., and Hyslop, E (2003) A Pilot Study Into the Potential for a Building Stones of Scotland Publication (Reference report). Historic Scotland, Edinburgh 66
McMillan, A., Hyslop, E., Maxwell, I. & McKinney, A. (2006a) Indigenous stone resources for Scotland’s built heritage. International Association of Engineering Geology
Paper
Number
825
Abstract.
The
Geological
Society
(London)
(www.iaeg2006.com) McMillan, A.A and Hyslop, E.K (2008) The City of Edinburgh – landscape and stone. ICOMOS 2008 Scientific Symposium. Edinburgh Morgan, M. H. (1914) Vitruvius: the Ten Books on Architecture .Harvard University Press, 1914, repr. Dover Books, New York, 1960 Naoum, Dr S. G. (2007) Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford National Heritage Training Group (2007) Traditional building Skills-assessing the Need. Meeting the Challenge. Scotland. NHTG, London Natural Stone Institute (2005) Building with Scottish stone. Arcamedia, Edinburgh. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2010) A National Statistics publication on Scotland's business stock in 2010.Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/10/SCSS10 accessed 10/5/2013 Office for National Statistics (2012) EMP16; Employment by labour survey http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=Standard+Occupational+Stan dards+%28SOC%29. accessed 13/04/2013 Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J. J. (1991) Studying information technology in organisations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, Iss; 2, pp 1–28. Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations, 5th ed. Routledge, London. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research methods for business students. 4th ed. Prentice Hall. London Powys, A.R. (1929) Repair of Ancient Buildings. Dent (Revised and republished by Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1986). London Purchase, W.R. (2009) Modern Practical Masonry. Donhead Publishing Ltd. Dorset Ruskin, J. (1853) The Stones of Venice / Volume the first / The Foundations, Volume the Second / The Sea Stories. Volume the Third / The Fall. Smith. Elder, and Co. London. Scotland. 2004. The Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Support and Shelter [Online]. Edinburgh: HMSO. Available from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/11/crossheading/support-and-shelter. [Accessed: 5th May 2013]. 67
Scotland. 2006. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. Chapter 4 and 6 [Online]. Edinburgh: HMSO. Available from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/1/contents. [Accessed: 5th May 2013]. Scottish Executive (2007) Building, Paving and roofing stones: Geology and mineral factsheets for Scotland. HMSO, Edinburgh. Scottish Government (1997) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/9/contents Scottish Government (2013) Technical Handbooks 2013 Domestic. Guidance on achieving the standards set in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00427330.pdf accessed 21/04/2013 Scottish House Condition Survey (2010) Key Findings. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/11/23172215/7 accessed 20/04/2013 Scottish Stone Liaison Group (2006) Safeguarding Glasgow’s Stone-Built Heritage: Skills and Material Requirements. Scottish Stone Liaison Group, Charlestown, Fife Sutton, Ian (1999) Western Architecture. Thames and Hudson, London Stake, R. E. (1978) The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, Volume 7, Iss;2, pp5-8 Swetnam, D. and Swetnam, R. (2009). Writing your dissertation: The bestselling guide to planning, preparing and presenting first-class work. 3rd ed. Oxford: How To Books Ltd. The
William
Morris
Craft
Fellowship
Trust
(2013)
Online
Article.
http://www.wmcft.org.uk/where-am-i-now.html accessed 25/05/2013 Clare Torney, Alan M. Forster, Craig J. Kennedy, Ewan K. Hyslop, (2012),""Plastic" repair of natural stone in Scotland: perceptions and practice", Structural Survey, Vol. 30 Iss: 4 pp. 297 - 311Torney, C., Urquhart, D. (2008) Natural Stone Masonry in Modern Scottish Construction: A guide for designers and constructors. Scottish Stone Liaison Group, Charlestown, Fife Watkin, D (2005) A History of Western Architecture, 4th ed. Laurence King Publishing, London Warland, E.G, (2006) Modern Practical Masonry. Donhead Publishing Ltd, Dorset Yin, R. (1993) Applications of case study research. Sage Publishing. Newbury Park, CA
68
