66 Portland Place

London W1B 1AD UK

Tel +44 (0)20 7580 5533
Fax +44 (0)20 7255 1541
[email protected]
www.architecture.com

Public Information line
0906 302 0400*
*call charged at 50p per minute
Registered Charity Number 210 566
VAT Registration Number 232 351 891


What is architectural research?
Architectural Research: Three Myths And One Model
1his paper is rom the RIBA`s Research and Deelopment Committee and represents
its current thinking. 1he aim o this paper is to prooke urther discussion on the
issue o architectural research in order to promote a wider debate.

Introduction
1he charter granted to the Royal Institute o British Architects in 183, sets out the
object o the institution as: "1he adancement o architecture and the promotion o
the acquirement o the knowledge o the arious arts and sciences connected
therewith."

Signiicantly, the charter thus implies that the adancement o architecture is
inextricably linked to the acquirement o knowledge. \hen one places this against the
deinition o research gien or the Research Assessment Lxercise ,RAL,, "research is
to be understood as original inestigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and
understanding", one could argue that research should be at the core o RIBA`s
actiities. 1his position paper takes as a starting point the essential tenet that
architecture is a orm o knowledge that can and should be deeloped through
research, and that good research can be identiied by applying the triple test o
originality, signiicance and rigour.

1o hold to this tenet, it is irst necessary to abandon three myths that hae eoled
around architectural research, and which hae held back the deelopment o research
in our ield.

Myth One: Architecture is just architecture
1he irst myth is that architecture is so dierent as a discipline and orm o
knowledge, that normal research deinitions or processes cannot be applied to it.' "\e
are so unlike you," the argument goes, "that you cannot understand how we work."
1his myth has or too long been used as an excuse or the aoidance o research and
the concomitant reliance on unspeciied but supposedly powerul orces o creatiity
and proessional authority. On the one hand this myth looks to the muse o genius or
succour, with the impulsie gestures o the indiidual architect seen to exceed the dry
channels o research as the catalyst or architectural production. 1he problem is that
these impulses are, almost by deinition, beyond explanation and so the production o
architecture is let mythologised rather than subjected to clear analysis. Architecture is
limited to a orm o ouija, with the architect, as heroic genius, acting as the lightning
rod or the storm o orces that goes into the making o buildings. On the other hand,
architecture is treated as an autonomous discipline, beyond the reaches or control o
outside inluences, including those o normatie research methodologies. 1his leads to
the separation o architecture rom other disciplines and their criteria or rigour. Sel-
reerential arguments, be they theories o type, aesthetics or technique, are allowed to
eole beyond the remit or inluence o accepted standards, and research into these
arguments is conducted on architecture`s own terms.

1he myth that architecture is just architecture, ounded on the twin notions o genius
and autonomy, leads eentually to the marginalisation o architecture. A knowledge
base is deeloped only itully and so architecture becomes increasingly irreleant and,
ultimately, irresponsible.


Memorandum

2


Myth 1wo: Architecture is not architecture
1he second myth works in opposition to the irst and argues that in order to establish
itsel as a credible and strong` epistemology, architecture must turn to other
disciplines or authority. Architecture is stretched along a line rom the arts to the
sciences and then sliced into discrete chunks, each o which is subjected to the
methods and alues o another intellectual area. lor example, the 1960s Oxord
Conerence looked to scientiic research as the means o establishing architecture
within the academy and more recently architectural theory has immersed itsel in the
urther reaches o post-structuralism in an eort to legitimise itsel on the back o
other discourses.

In both these cases, and others that rely on other intellectual paradigms, architecture`s
particularity is placed within a methodological straightjacket. In turning to others,
architecture orgets what it might be in itsel. 1he second myth, that architecture is
not architecture, in editing the complexity o architecture thus describes it as
something that it may not be. It is a myth uelled by the unding mechanisms or
research, with the arious research councils deining acceptable areas through
particular research paradigms, which simply do not it the breadth o architecture.


Myth 1hree: Building a building is research
1he third myth is that designing a building is a orm o research in its own right. It is a
myth that allows architects and architectural academics to eschew the norms o
research ,and also to complain when those norms are used to critique buildings as
research proposals,. 1he argument to support this myth goes something like this:
1. Architectural knowledge ultimately resides in the built object
2. Lery building is by deinition unique and thus original
3. 1he production o buildings can thus be deined as the production o original
knowledge
4. 1his is a deinition o research

It is compelling enough an argument to allow generations o architects ,as well as
designers and artists, to eel conident in saying that the ery act o making is
suicient in terms o research, and then to argue that the eidence is in ront o all our
eyes i we would just choose to look.

loweer it is also an argument that leads to denial o the real beneits o research, and
so it is worth unpicking.
1. Architectural knowledge may lie to some extent in the building, but it also lies
elsewhere: in the processes that lead to the building, in the representation o


Memorandum

3

the building, in its use, in the theories beyond the building, and so on.
Architecture exceeds the building as object, just as art exceeds the painting as
object. Architectural research must thereore address this expanded ield.
2. A good` building is not necessarily good research, and good research may lead
to bad` buildings. Architecture is normatiely described as good` because it
its into known and tested canons o taste, type or tectonics. But this
goodness` does not constitute good research, in so much as it is not
particularly original or signiicant. A good` building, ar rom pushing towards
new orms o knowledge, merely establishes or incrementally shits the status.
Lqually buildings that are normatiely described as bad` may be the outcomes
o good research - or example the technologies and construction procedures
o ood distribution centres.
3. I we take Bruce Archer`s deinition o research ,that it is "systematic inquiry
whose goal is communicable knowledge",, then the building a. bvitaivg ails
the test. Architects clearly hae to be thorough, but they are not necessarily
systematic. Choices and decisions are made but not normally through
systematic ealuation. More crucially, whilst architects may beliee that
knowledge is there in the building to appropriated by critics, users or other
architects, they ery rarely explicitly communicate the knowledge. It thus lies
tacit, thereby ailing Archer`s second test o communicability.

Designing a building is thus vot vece..arit, research. 1he building as building reduces
architecture to mute objects. 1hese in themseles are not suicient as the stu o
research inquiry. In order to moe things on, to add to the store o knowledge, we
need to understand the processes that led to the object and to interrogate the lie o
the object ater its completion.




Memorandum

4

Making Architecture Speak
Against these myths, this paper argues that architecture has its own particular
knowledge base and procedures. 1his particularity does not mean that one should
aoid the normal expectations o research, but in act demands us to deine clearly the
context, scope and modes o research aroriate to architecture, whilst at the same
time employing the generic deinitions o originality, signiicance and rigour.

Architectural research may be seen to hae two main contexts or its production, the
academy and practice. Lach has its own strengths and weaknesses, but it is ital that
neither is priileged oer the other as a superior orm o research, and equally ital
that neither is dismissed by the other or being irreleant. ,"\ou are all out o touch
with reality", says the practitioner. "\ou are muddied by the market and philistinism",
says the academic,. 1here is an unnecessary antipathy o one camp to the other, which
means that in the end the worth o research in deeloping a sustainable knowledge
base is dealued, and with it the RIBA charter ails.

1he key to oercoming this problem lies in communication. Both the academy and
practice oten do not meet this central test or research: the academy because o its
inward looking processes, practice because o its lack o rigorous dissemination.
\hilst academic research is subjected to stringent peer reiew and assessment
procedures, it has been argued that this had led to inward-looking results produced
more or the sel-sustaining beneit o the academic community and less or the wider
public and proessional good. On the practice side it may be argued that UK
architecture has an exemplary practice-led research system, with internationally leading
work being carried out in this country. Much o the most innoatie research in
design and, particularly, technology is ounded in practice. loweer, much o this
research remains tacit, it is either, or commercial reasons, not shared with the rest o
the community or else in its dissemination through the press is not communicated
with the rigour it deseres. lor the leading practices intellectual property is what
deines them and sustains them, and they understandably are loath to gie it away.
Research goes on, but silently. 1he deelopment o architectural knowledge happens
but itully, and so the long-term sustainability o the proession is threatened. 1o
aoid this, we need to make architecture speak.

\e thereore hae to ind a way to improe the communication o the tacit research
carried out in practice, but in a way that does not compromise the alue o the
indiidual practice`s intellectual property. 1his can be achieed in three ways. lirst
there is a new role or academia to link up with practice in order to carry out an
arcbaeotog, o the processes o architectural production, in a non-threatening but
critical manner, critical here not being a negatie term but one o relection and
comparison. By excaating the present one inorms the uture. Practice has the raw
data on which architectural knowledge is ounded, academia can release this potential
through research. 1he ocus here is not on the products o architecture, buildings, but
on the processes, and by shiting the attention rom the indiidual object to a
comparatie archaeology, one remoes the pressure o the precious intellectual
property. Secondly, unding or research has to shit rom sliced areas o knowledge
controlled by arious sectors o academia, to a more coherent strategy shared by both


Memorandum

5

academics and practitioners. As a recent CABL report conincingly argues, much
more work needs to be done at a strategic and goernmental leel to encourage
unding across departments and across research councils in order to relect the real
needs or research into the built enironment. 1hirdly, money needs to be made
aailable directly to practices in order to enable and ,importantly, communicate
primary research. 1he DLS unding o the Lxemplary Schools research project is one
isolated example o money being productiely released into practice in order release
the potential o design research.


A New Model for Architectural Research
As we hae seen, the stretching o architecture across separate areas o knowledge
does not address the particular need or architectural knowledge and practice to be
integratie across epistemological boundaries. Buildings as physical products unction
in a number o independent but interactie ways - they are structural entities, they act
as enironmental modiiers, they unction socially, culturally and economically. Lach
o these types o unction can be analysed separately but the built orm itsel uniies
and brings them together in such a way that they interact. Research into architecture
thus has to be conscious o these interactions across traditionally separate intellectual
ields.

In order to gie some clarity to the scope o architectural research, these interactions
can be diided into three stages:

Architectural processes
Architectural products
Architectural perormance

1he irst stage, process, reers to research into processes inoled in the design and
construction o buildings, and thus might include or example issues o
representation, theories o design, modelling o the enironment, and so on. 1he
second, product, reers to research into buildings as projected or completed objects
and systems and might include or example issues o aesthetics, materials,
constructional techniques and so on. 1he third stage, perormance, reers to research
into buildings once completed and might or example include issues o social
occupation, enironmental perormance, cultural assimilation, and so on. 1he
adantage o this model is that it aoids the science,art and qualitatie,quantitatie
splits, and allows interdisciplinary research into any o three stages. 1he model thus
breaks the hold o research vetboa and allows instead thematic approaches to emerge.
It is possible or scientist ava historian, academic ava practitioner, to contribute to the
research into each o the three stages.

Most importantly the model also describes architecture temporally ,as opposed to a
set o static ragments,, with one stage leading to another and, crucially, creating an
iteratie loop in which one stage is inormed by another. lor research to be most


Memorandum

6

eectie, and thus or architectural knowledge to deelop, it has to eed this loop. lor
example:
Research into perormance in use inorming the processes o design.
Research into the products o design looking backwards to knowledge about
the processes o design
Research into the perormance o buildings being critically inormed by
knowledge o the processes o architecture

A dynamic system thus emerges rom this tripartite model, but it will only operate i
academia and practice collaborate in order that the loop is continually ed with both
data and analysis. 1his suggests a new role or the RIBA to act as broker between the
arious parties and to encourage the communication o the practice-based research
which is presently tacit. 1hese are the driers behind the creation o the new Research
and Deelopment department at the RIBA. Its objecties o brokerage ,in its widest
sense,, dissemination, lobbying or issues such as research unding and inorming
opinion on architectural research, take priority oer direct inolement in indiidual
research projects. Key in its actiities to adance these objecties are the annual
Research Symposium and the recently announced RIBA President's Awards or
Research .

Only when this is seen to be working can the RIBA truly ulill the aim o its charter
in terms o the adancement o architecture. 1his paper has aimed to clear the way or
this role to deelop.


1his position paper was written by Jeremy 1ill on behal o and approed by the
RIBA Research Committee.


' In an exhaustie research project carried by Ldinburgh College o Art in 2004, a
signiicant minority o responders still clung to this belie.
\arwick, L and Gonzalez, S, 1be reat bvaget for re.earcb: av avat,.i. of cvrrevt teret. of
vbtic fvvaivg for bvitt evrirovvevt re.earcb ,London, Commission or Architecture and the
Built Lnironment, 2004,
1hese deinitions hae been deeloped by Proessor Bryan Lawson at the Uniersity
o Sheield as a means o research analysis.


How to contact us
R&D department
Royal Institute o British Architects
66 Portland Place
London
\1B 1AD
Lmail researchinst.riba.org