The failure of the theoretical approach here presented, and the knowledge already available, to influence design can be attributed to several things. One is that culture-specific design, which is a logical consequence of cultural responsiveness, is politically difficult to be advocate and to implement. Another is that while it is necessary to know what is already known, use research and know the literature, that is not sufficient. “Facts” alone are not influential. Whether they are used on how one sees things, i.e. defines the domain and the problem. This argument has recently received empirical confirmation in a study of landscape architecture students. Although they themselves had done research on the cultural characteristics of particular user groups none of that research influenced their design work supposedly based on it. Design followed traditional arbitrary, formal and “aesthetic” criteria. Thus, for design to become more culturally responsive, changes are essential in what architecture dose, what design is seen to be and what theory is understood to be. The emphasis shifts to problem understanding, clarification and definition before problem solving. There will need to be a concern with what is to be done and why (based on the best available theory and knowledge). Explicit objectives (“what”) will need to be set, their validity judged and justifies (“why”). Are the objectives valid? How do we know? How can we find out? Having accepted the validity of these objectives one then turns to how one achieves them (which currently is the major concern). Here also much more explicitness is necessary: what means are suitable? Why? How do we know? Then we ask: have we achieved our objectives? How can we find out? All these are clearly related to what I have called the public aspects of design, the framework within which individual designers work and designs occur.
The conclusion is that for designed environments to become culturally responsive one needs to change the professional culture. This also follows from one of the interpretations of culture discussed above, which defines it as that structure that gives meaning to particulars. In that sense I found it encouraging that the 1984 Northeast Regional ACSA meetings addressed the topic of “The Cultural Responsiveness of Architecture.” Could it possibly mean that our professional culture may at long last be beginning to change?