** Nonparticipant video and written observation protocol studies, (similar to those in our pilot studies).

** Post-jury questionnaires of the students observed and filmed in the juries.

** National survey questionnaires of design school faculty and administrators.

** Analytical / Historical research regarding past uses and development of design juries, and the relationship of the jury system to design education and the studio.

** Participant observation, including unstructured interviews with faculty regarding their opinions of and experiences with design juries,  as well as unstructured interviews with foreign faculty and students regarding contemporary design review practices abroad. 

** Data `triangulation' interviews, including taped commentary and field notes, of uninvolved parties regarding their impressions and observations of our video tapes of design juries.

Variables Developed:

        Communications / verbal and implicit:

**who talks/ how often/ how long/ to whom? Total time of jury (TOTTIME variable), time of student presentation (STIME variable), percentage of verbal participation in the jury allowed the student (STALK variable).

** who interrupts whom / how often / when do first interruptions of the student verbal presentation occur? Incidence of interruptions of:  male to female jurors (MF variable), female to male jurors (FM variable, Juror to student (ITS variable), student to juror (IST variable), male to male juror (MM variable), female to female juror (FF variable), interruptions of student presentation (ISP variable), total number of intra-juror interruptions (ITOTAL variable)?

** communication style(s) employed by and with which individuals / reflections, empathy, advisements, questioning? Incidence of real, non-functional / conceptual questioning of student by jurors for instance, “Please explain your decision-making process on this issue", rather than "Where is your service entry?" (REAL variable). Incidence of rhetorical questioning of student by jurors (RHET variable). Ratio of rhetorical to total questions asked, (RHETTOT variable)?

** inattentiveness and boredom/ yawns, sighs, sleep, posture?

** student, jury, and audience kinesics, presentation, postures, dress, etc.?

** proxemics and mobility / rigidity of student and jurors?

** incidence of juror `protectionism', or speaking for the student presenter in response to questions from other jurors, (PROTECT variable)?

** evidence of active listening / questioning?

** student or juror disclosures / requests for assistance?

        Content and Process Issues:

** jury type / preliminary, final, or thesis, (TYPE1,2 and 3 variables)?

** what are the jury comments and in what sequence do they occur? Do they build upon one another’s' comments? Incidence of collaborative idea building (IB variable). Is there a consensus to their remarks?  Are there hidden agendas or open philosophical debates?  To whom are the jurors' comments addressed?

** what methods of giving feedback are employed? In what situations? Were they accepted, or was there feigned agreement? (our post-jury interviews can help clarify this type of issue).

** students' acceptance of comments/feedback? Is there evidence of defensiveness, hostility, acquiescence, servility, boredom, anxiety, etc.?

** when, where and why do the lines of communication fail?  What was the nature and content of the dialogue preceding any failure in communication?

** general quality of the project's design (GRPROJ variable)?

** clarity, fluency and nature of the student verbal presentation (GRPRES variable)?

** evidence / discussion of decision-making process of student?

** decision-making process of jury: how, when, what?

** discussion on educational objectives and learning process?

** evidence of `group think' or the focusing of juror commentary on only one or two issues (ISSUEF variable)?

** evidence of consensus building among jurors?

** fluency, clarity, insight, of juror questions and comments?

** misunderstandings by jurors? By student presenter?

        Leadership and Group Maintenance:

** designated leadership / emergent leadership?

** Leadership gender (FEMLEAD and MALELEAD variables).

** struggle for leadership role?

** leadership allowing fair hearing for all ideas?

** encouragement of process of collaborative idea building?

** leadership styles employed? (supportive, directive, coaching, delegating)

** leadership opinion sublimation / dominance?

** clarification / elaboration / summarizing / consensus testing?

** attempts to control proceedings / control interruptions?

        Environmental Setting / Contextual Variables:

** diagram seating and room configuration / identify participant's location and any position changes that may occur / code all juror participants.  

** diagram general location and layout of student graphic presentation.

** diagram general layout of audience / locate any faculty or administration seated or standing in audience.

** monitor opinion polarization with reference to seating positions.

** indicate ceiling height, light sources and their location and note ambient noise levels.

** number of entries and exits of jurors.

** note effects of overcrowding or proxemics on antagonistic participants.

** note seating configurations relative to status of participants, particularly high status individuals.

** note levels of social interaction relative to proxemics of participants.

** note possible collective effects of room size, lighting, background noise, seating configurations on general arousal / non-arousal dimensions of the jury. 

         Participation and Prejudice:

** number of female and male jurors participating in each jury, (FEMJ and MALEJ variables)? Ratio of female jurors to total jurors participating, (FEMTOT variable)?

** gender of student presenter, (FEMST and MALEST variables)?

** average duration of male and female juror remarks, (FDURAT and MDURAT variables)?

** percentage of female juror verbal participation in each jury relative to male / female membership ratios, (FDESERVE variable)?

** student presenter's race, (SRACE1,2,3,4 variables)? (only one minority juror was observed throughout the entire study)** incidence of student and faculty visual or verbal acknowledgements of the camera's presence in the jury, (CAMSTU and CAMFAC variables)?