Architectural research and disciplinarity

Abstract

There are at present considerable concerns with how architectural research will be assessed in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) of 2008. In RAE 2001, most architectural research was submitted to one of three Units of Assessment (UoA): 33 Built Environment, 60 History of Art, Architecture and Design, and 64 Art and Design. There were subtle, but important, differences in output definition and assessment criteria between UoA 33 and UoA 64 with respect to practice-led research. Most importantly, in UoA 33 practice-led outputs were accepted by the panel, but only as publications, whereas UoA 64 assessed practice-led research outputs accompanied by a 300-word statement that clarified the contributions of that particular research to the development of original knowledge in the field. The diversity of methods and complexity of output types, combined with the composition of UoA 33, led to results that many feel did not properly reflect the strengths of architectural design, particularly practice-led research. This methodology essentially disenfranchised a significant part of the community from the rae process to the detriment not only of the community, but to the credibility of the process itself.

Thinking about Architecture

“…For example, some research shows that everyday street markets are just as important -or indeed more so -to a local community than might be any number of designer-focused high-street boutiques. Similar research shows that art does not have to be placed within an art gallery to have a profound effect on people -buildings can have murals, sculpture on their facades and gardens outside that allow for all manner of artistic events (Rendell 2004). Or that playgrounds and other neighbourhood sports facilities can have a more immediate local impact than Wembley Stadium, or that a good and well-designed secondary school is more connected to the specifi c educational achievements and standards within a particular community than may be a new national museum hundreds of miles away.…”

Towards a Social-Ecological Urbanism: Co-Producing Knowledge through Design in the Albano Resilient Campus Project in Stockholm

“…The epistemological background of the design professions, on the other hand, draws from a far wider range of sources-both the natural and social sciences, as well as aesthetic and artistic practices [39]. Despite this inherent eclecticism, many scholars agree on the need to acknowledge the disciplinary specificity of design [39][40][41], and in past decades, the capacity of design as a knowledge-generating process has been highlighted in the fields of architecture and urbanism, see for instance [42][43][44][45][46][47]. This discussion is particularly developed in relation to the "co-design" discourse, e.g., [48,49].…”

Nonhumans in participatory design

“…Removing the dichotomy between expert/non-expert has generated much of the impetus behind participatory design. In traditional (non-participatory) design, there is a key designer, and/or team of experts, who control the process (Rendell 2004). In participatory design, nonexperts become part of the design team.…”