Energy and Buildings, 5 (1982) 147 147

An Epilogue

... Beneath the apparent tranquility of Dr. Ian Cooper's guest editorial, lies a battle. This battle is between those who adopt the physiological approach to the subject versus those who adopt the interpretive approach.

The tradition lies with the physiological men, who by extolling the state of their art have demonstrated that really they have got about as far as they can go. The statistical analysis of responses to temperature changes in laboratory built chambers and the like, have been and are very useful in defining for example the lack of discomfort zone and how it changes with age etc. However, current additional experiments designed to provide repli- cation, and to define more and more accurately tolerable limits, do not appear to be taking us much further, and is certainly of no help to us in answering questions that we are currently concerned with for example how people will use/deal with a comfortable/uncomfortable situation in practice. The best of them, for example Dr. MacIntyre, seem to recognise this, and seem in their work to be seeking a new direction. To answer these new questions a new methodology/direct ion is needed. This I would argue is the interpretive approach based on observation in the particular end use sector concerned, to derive an understanding of the underlying human motivations so necessary to explain the "apparent" diversity and scatter of human responses.

To me the importance of the conference was that it represented an important watershed, in that from a reading of the papers, the need for a change of direction becomes clear...

Pat O'Sullivan The Welsh School of Architecture

Research and Development University of Wales

Institute of Science and Technology 24 St Andrews Crescent Cardiff CF1 3DD, U.K.

0378-7788/82/0000-0000/$02.75 © Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands