I've always felt lukewarm about the hot topic of research in architecture, because so much of it is so wishy washy. Yes, there are solid examples of rigorous research on relevant questions. But there is a lot more hay-making about nothing: in many cases, what architects call research is nothing but self-education, basic analysis, or normal creative thought - not the generation of new knowledge. And of course much of the current research is about building techniques or materials - very relevant and much needed but not our exclusive domain. Not enough people are parsing questions of how design impacts our audiences in ways we can all apply (perhaps because it is harder to own the results / profit from the investment that research). There may be things about practice to research too, but I can't articulate those questions quite yet. I wish there was a regular section of Architect magazine that disseminated the results of rigorous and verified research, and taught us what rigorous research is and is NOT.
In any case, I really am just posting here to recommend this article by Richard Buday, FAIA, that shares my thoughts, with more in-depth background than I have: The Confused and Impoverished State of Architectural Research
| Common Edge |
remove preview |
|
| The Confused and Impoverished State of Architectural Research |
| The discipline of architecture thinks of itself as learned, but scholarly research eludes the profession. This is a longstanding problem. "Failure," John Ruskin wrote in his 1848 introduction to The Seven Lamps of Architecture , "is less frequently attributable to either insufficiency of means or impatience of labor, than to a confused understanding of the thing actually to be done." |
| View this on Common Edge > |
|
|
------------------------------
Scott Knudson, PMKC Co-Chair
Knu Design, LLC
------------------------------