Architectural Practice and

Academic Research

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler

Nordic Journal of Architectural Research
Volume 20, No 1, 2008, 12 pages
Nordic Association for Architectural Research
Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler
University of Hertfordshire, England and University of Lund, Sweden

Abstract
This paper examines one possible relationship of academic research and professional practice. It
notes that this issue arises from particular national conditions that are not necessarily shared in
different countries. As a result, this relationship is not equally visible or similarly understood, and
hence models of research have national and even regional variations that threaten the transferabili-
ty of architectural research across national boundaries, in contrast to established models of rese-
arch from the sciences. The paper proposes a criterion-based response to this problem that seeks
to identify common features of research and practice, thereby extending previous scholarship on the
nature of academic research.

Keywords
Architecture, research, academic, professional, criteria, international, fundamentals, norms

83
Introduction
This paper examines variations in the relationship of academic research and professional practice
in different countries. It uses cases from architecture to illustrate a general thesis. It proposes a
criterion-based response that identifies common essential features of research, thereby providing
common ground for constructive debate.

Article
The first issue of the USA Journal of Architectural Education in 1947 offered a preview of the debate
that still rages over the relationship of professional practice and academic research in architecture.
In it Bannister adopted a broad view of research that included all kinds of information-gathering
from both practical experimentation and experience, and from more scientific or laboratory-based
approaches. His paradigm was the scientist-architect of earlier times. In the same issue Taylor cal-
led for ´research that was distinctly architectural´ and of the ´objective-fundamental type´.1 What
these articles shared was a lack of clarity about how research should be conducted in cultural and
humanistic fields. In the intervening period there have been many international projects that have
investigated the potential of what has become known as ´arts-based´ or ´practice-based´ research
[PbR]: an integration of professional experiential knowledge-gathering and academic research.
However, the conclusions of these projects are very different, and in part represent different natio-
nal and cultural perceptions of the nature of the problem as well as its solution. What has emerged
from the authors’ experience on these projects is the need to go back to fundamentals before
making claims regarding the benefits of PbR.2 Such a fundamental approach would ask structural
questions about the essential nature of research, and would result in criteria for identifying and
evaluating research processes and outcomes, ensuring that research into PbR is comparable to
scholarship about research in other areas, reflecting for example Merton’s scientific norms3. This
article examines the perception of the problem of design-related architectural research, and its use
of terminology, in three different countries: Britain, Brazil and Sweden. It argues that these pro-
blems can be addressed by identifying a common set of criteria for research, based on the content
of the scientific model rather than by imitating its form. As such this article adds to previous rese-
arch by Merton, and Dunin-Woyseth & Michl4, but is original in the details of its method and the cri-
teria that it proposes in relation to PbR.

BRITAIN
In Britain, and more widely in Europe, there is an on-going debate about whether academic rese-
arch in areas of design practice is different from the research that is developed in other disciplines5.
The question of what constitutes research in the various areas was opened to discussion in 1992
when the British polytechnics were given university status and could therefore independently esta-
blish discipline-specific regulations that defined what constituted research in each area. With this
change, certain criteria that were previously seen as clear and universal in most disciplines, started
to be questioned and replaced by a search for definitions that would reflect the particularities of
design practices such as architecture, fine, performing and applied arts, music, design, etc.6
Formerly fixed and defined terms within the traditional model of academic research such as ‘know-
ledge’, ‘creativity’, ‘reference’, ‘method’, ‘audience’, etc, started to be questioned and explored.
These concepts that are characteristic of the traditional model of research were reformed in an
attempt to make them more applicable to the humanities. Some influential discussions were con-
ducted around the hybrid concepts such as ‘tacit and experiential knowledge’, ‘reflexive method’
and ‘grounded theory’, and these still provoke considerable debate.7 For example, tacit knowledge
has been conceptualised by Polanyi in a way that allows it to be rigorously analysed8, and has resul-
ted in models of knowledge that are now used extensively in business and knowledge management,
e.g. Mode-2 knowledge9. However, there are still criticisms of tacit knowledge and its philosophical-
ly subjective component10. Likewise, Schön’s concept of knowledge-in-action has appealed to the
design community11 but is still criticised as an explanation of the transfer of action into knowledge12.

This reformation occurred in a localized way in various British universities, each one responding to
the demands made by their main audience (e.g. Universities of Coventry, Dundee, Hertfordshire,
West of England, and the University of the Arts, London). At a national level the Research

84 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008

Assessment Exercise (RAE), which assesses research quality, published a set of criteria for asses-
sing the quality of research for the panel that deals with the areas of creative and design practice.13
At an individual level some critics suggested that a separation between PbR and the traditional
model of research in art and design should be made that corresponded to the identification of a
specific route to the title ´PhD´ in areas of design practice in certain institutions.14 Responding to
published research by these individuals some institutions modified the traditional requirements for
theses, demanding only the documentation of the design process15. Documentation of the process
has been strongly adopted in the performance areas such as dance, where PARIP (Practice as
Research in Performance) proposes that a dance performance is research.

As a result of this questioning of what would constitute research, many diverse and alternative con-
cepts of quality and understanding have arisen. Today in Britain there are many models of PhD the-
sis that range from the traditional bound document to the possibility of submitting only a work of
art or presenting an exhibit around which theoretical points are discussed at doctoral level.16 The
specific question of whether, in academic research in areas of design practice, there are issues that
are fundamentally different from the dominant models of research should have been anticipated
when the new British universities, the former polytechnics, restructured their syllabi. Within this
new academic structure each discipline had its own academic research potential and it should have
been possible to identify the gaps in the descriptions of academic research that would inevitably be
developed independently in the departments that taught design practice. Because this situation was
not anticipated by the British authorities, nationally accepted criteria of what constituted academic
research in areas of design practice were not established and the subsequent confusion has now
become institutionalized.

BRAZIL
In contrast to the British situation, the structure of higher education of architecture in Brazil divides
those disciplines that deal with theoretical and fundamental issues from technical and productive
aspects, and from design practice.17 Perrone explored the bipolarity between research and architec-
tural practice and claimed that expressions such as ‘architectural project as thesis’ (‘projeto-tese’)
were indicative of the problem for the Brazilian architect-researcher.18 The architect-researcher
archetype is the professional who designs, lectures and also develops academic research. However,
the relationship between these activities is not clear. On the one hand, it is not clear whether the
architect's practice contributes in an original and unique way to the academic research that she
develops. On the other hand, the current structures within Brazilian academic production assume a
distinction between the practical and research result. For example, in order to upload data onto the
Lattes database of research, the output of design practice must be listed as technical rather than
academic production.19 This limits access to research funding because the professional who, as a
result of this distinction, appears to have insufficient academic production will have to resort to
other sources of financial support. As a result it is common to find that the professional develops
research that presents a more practical outcome, or outcomes that have commercial applications.
Such a professional, whose research is then being funded by non-academic research funding agen-
cies, is disadvantaged in the development of theoretical and fundamental research which is the type
of research that helps to build critical mass in an academic community.20 Therefore, despite diffe-
rences in their origination, in both Britain and Brazil the same question about the relationship bet-
ween academic research and design practice is being asked: Is academic research in areas of design
practice in some way different from the dominant model of academic research?

The Brazilian example provides an interesting comparison to the permissive approach to PbR in
Britain. In Brazil, academic research and design practice are seen as two quite distinct activities.
Therefore, although PbR outcomes exist in Brazil they are not in the foreground, and instead it is
the differentiation between academic and practice production that is in the foreground for individual
professionals.21

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler: Architectural Practice and Academic Research 85
SWEDEN
In Sweden, one form of PbR is known as arts-based research. The Swedish government recently
passed a Bill that broadened the scope of the Research Council [Vetenskapsrådet] to include the
creative and performing arts. The 2005 Bill Research for a Better Life was the response to a three-
year experimental period of ring-fenced funding in areas of national interest22. In 2006 this experi-
mental period, which included four international visiting professors funded by Vetenskapsrådet, was
itself the subject of a quality review23. The commissioning of this review shows the concern at a nati-
onal level with the potential competitive advantage of establishing and exploiting a category of aca-
demic research in areas of design practice. Interestingly, architecture is included in these areas,
unlike Britain where the research funding in PbR has mainly been in the fine and performing arts
and design. The review also confirms the existence and foregrounding of PbR in Sweden. However,
as distinct from the approach in Britain, the Swedish example suggests that this is an issue that
could be investigated centrally with a view to a national definition and ultimate resolution of the pro-
blem, at least as far as the Swedish academy is concerned24.

One example of the approach to PbR in Sweden is the Academy for Practice-based Research in
Architecture and Design (AKAD). It is an architectural research network that has been established
by the three national postgraduate architectural universities of Lund, Stockholm and Chalmers
(Göteborg). A current project is ´Los Angeles Islands´ that investigates architectonic Americanisms
in the Swedish region of Skåne. The project asks: ´What are the mechanisms at work in that which
appears as a conglomerate of America-dreams? How are American utopias and dystopias - Los
Angeles Islands - surfacing in south west Skåne? Los Angeles Islands is a project which by means
of artistic interpretation aims at confronting the influences and expressions of American architectu-
re in Sweden. The results are shown at exhibitions.´25

THE ILLUSIVE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH

It would seem that depending on how the matter is conceptualized, the distinction between PbR and
conventional academic research can go from visible and debatable to invisible and therefore not
debated. The authors of the present article take the view that PbR should not be set apart from tra-
ditional concepts of academic research. We argue that rather than being a distinct type of research
that should be guided by special concepts, PbR is a subcategory of traditional academic research
that can and should attend to and observe conventional research criteria. Some of these criteria
may need to be rearticulated so that the terminology is recognized as meaningful to the areas of
design practice. However, it is our belief that academic research communities would benefit from
such clarification of the criteria that frame their discipline-specific methods and outcomes in more
cross-disciplinary and transferable ways.

Perhaps because of national conditions such as those in our examples, the term PbR provokes a
series of misunderstandings and disagreements. It is not clear, for example, what contribution from
practice to academic research would characterize this research sub-group. If PbR is a subset of
academic research then certain elements of academic research need to be reframed in a way that
accounts for specificities of design practice, without losing their original purpose.26 Even academic
research that is developed within the traditional scientific disciplines contains practical elements
such as experimentation, data collection, observation and interviewing. Maintaining the link betwe-
en design research and traditional academic research is necessary because it will enable design to
show that it conducts high quality, rigorous academic research.

At the Latin American Schools and Faculties of Architecture conference, Perrone discussed the
question of academic research in the area of architectural design.27 He stated that there is a con-
cern in understanding the relationship between research and design, and presented two perspecti-
ves on academic research in areas of architectural design. The first perspective is apparent in
debates that are conducted in the disciplines of architecture, design and urbanism where a large
number of academics take research work as that which ‘contains a method and/or a systematic tre-
atment that is capable of establishing reflections and conclusions about some objects of study’.28
The second perspective, which comes from the architectural design practitioners, defends ‘design
activities as research activities’.29 The first group of academics argue that various other disciplines

86 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008

can contribute to research on architectural design. On the other hand, the second group argue that
because architectural design is the object of study of academic research in this area, it can only be
known and therefore investigated effectively by the architect herself. If a researcher from a different
area conducts the investigation, the risk is the same as when ‘we try to conduct an economic inter-
pretation without being economists, a sociological interpretation without being sociologists and so
forth’.30 Perrone concluded that this debate about the relationship between research and practice
reflects the uncertainties about the production of knowledge that exist in higher education architec-
tural institutes.

The contribution of design practice to academic research can best be described as a spectrum that
is composed of two extreme poles with a long and variable range of possible combinations between
the two. For the sake of perspicuity, three ways in which design practice can contribute to academic
research will be described here: the two extreme poles of (1) exploratory practice within the traditi-
onal model of academic research and (2) practice as a generator of relevant questions that are
explored within the structure provided by the traditional model of academic research; and (3) the
problematic relationship that this study considers and that occupies the central position on the
practice/research spectrum which claims that design practice is academic research.

The first relationship between design practice and academic research exists within the traditional,
scientific model of academic research, where the role of practice is exploratory. At this pole hypot-
heses are created and ways of investigating these possibilities through experiments, models, inter-
views, representations, observations, etc., are considered. Within this model, design practice contri-
butes to academic research as a means of testing the applicability of hypotheses and theories to
real-world situations31. The other pole of the practice/research relationship exists within design
practice. At this pole the practitioner surrounds herself during the creative process, with informati-
on that is deemed relevant for the specific design problem in the hopes of reaching an insightful
solution32. Within this model, design practice is a means of identifying questions that are considered
important to the applied context.

The problematic relationship between design practice and academic research appears when the
original knowledge and understanding that results from design practice per se, claims to contribute
to the advancement of that community, i.e. position (3) above. The definitions of academic research
that are offered by research funding bodies highlight the contribution of the new knowledge to the
community as being a defining characteristic of academic research.33 It therefore seems to be a
logical conclusion that design practice that contributes to the area in this way would be academic
research. Design practice would therefore be the same as academic research and would mean, for
example, that Lúcio Costa should have been awarded a PhD for the design of Brasilia, and Picasso
for his Demoiselles D’Avignon. We believe this conclusion is erroneous.

We note two alternative arguments that explain the particular position that design practice occupies
in academic research. The first claims that what distinguishes this particular research sub-group is
the non-conformist education of the architect that makes her resist the systematization that is a
necessary condition of academic research.34 This argument classifies the area of design practice as
distinct in some way. It also suggests that academic research that is developed in these areas
should enjoy special privileges because of its distinctiveness. The second argument suggests the
opposite opinion: that these areas are not different from the other disciplines where academic rese-
arch is conducted and for that reason, if the design practitioners require different criteria (such as
the architectural project as thesis) they need to make a persuasive argument that defends the use
of alternative conceptualizations rather than simply suspending the established criteria.35 This argu-
ment suggests that academic research in areas of design practice would be different but equal.

We propose that these only appear to be different arguments, and that by achieving transparency
about the meaning and use of terminology, many of these apparent differences will disappear and
the positions can then be reconciled. We claim that academic research-defining criteria should be
analysed so that the conceptual essence of these criteria can be reconsidered in light of the parti-
cularities of design practice. To achieve this it is necessary to take relevant concepts that are accep-
ted by the design practice community into consideration when reframing more inclusive academic

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler: Architectural Practice and Academic Research 87
research criteria. The simple and wholesale acceptance of practice as research creates problems.
One aspect that makes the recognition of this type of research as academic production potentially
problematic is the non-traditional nature of its results. This makes them incommensurable with
traditional written documentation. Another problem is the specificity of the many concepts that are
used in design practice. This goes against the notion of generalizability, or at least transferability, of
research.

There are emerging discipline-specific interpretations of concepts such as ‘knowledge’, ‘rigor’ and
‘artefact’ in areas of design practice, to name a few. Notions of ‘knowledge’ in its various forms and
manifestations have been discussed by the Research Training Initiative, the Non-Traditional
Knowledge and Communication Project, and in the second Research into Practice conference in
2002.36 However, there is also a huge variety of self-professed practice-based PhDs and doctoral
supervisors with limited experience of research. Even in Britain where PbR has long been recogni-
zed, there is still considerable disagreement about what constitutes indicators of excellence in aca-
demic research in general. Evidence of this situation can be seen in the various debates on acade-
mic discussion lists.37 Without a shared definition of criteria, the question of PbR is circular. For
example, the statistical data on PbR PhDs does not give an account of whether or not these PhDs
respond to a group of expanded criteria that is compatible with, and comparable to, those held in
traditional models of academic research.38

A METHOD FOR BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE

In response to the above we oppose the notion that PbR is a sub-group of academic research that is
somehow different from research conducted in other areas, requiring special treatment. In order to
substantiate our position we propose a criterion-based approach that analyzes the necessary con-
tent of terms such as ´knowledge´, ´rigor´, and ´artefact´ so that any differences between the
content in one area and the content in another can be exposed. The analysis is undertaken from a
theoretical position that reveals the necessary and sufficient conditions for each criterion, and that
prevents the analysis becoming a vicious circle. If criteria are developed from actual case studies it
is difficult to subsequently use the criteria as defining characteristics of research because they are
influenced by the case studies which could not have been filtered without using the criteria, hence
the circularity. The criterion-based approach verifies whether incorporating discipline-specific inter-
pretations that are held by this sub-group will bring any advantages to the academic community, or
whether it will merely dilute rigorous academic research. We believe it is essential that research in
this area be recognized as rigorous and comparable to research in other fields in order to gain cre-
dibility. There is, however, still the problem that research which is recognized as academic is that
which meets the traditional norms of research. This difficulty can be resolved if the traditional
norms of research are analysed using a criterion-based approach so that what is essential is diffe-
rentiated from what has come to be expected owing to historical precedent. For example, is there a
fundamental reason why research is normally reported in written format, or is that just a precedent
derived from text-based disciplines?

In 1997, the United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) commissioned a report on
PbR, which presented a strong and welcome argument for the relevance of studying PbR as a
means of improving the academic industry’s competitive advantage. The report identified three main
principles of doctoral research: ‘contribution to knowledge and understanding’, ‘critical knowledge
of the research methods’ and ‘[be] subject to an oral examination by appropriate assessors’.39 This
attempt to find a few fundamental principles that underpin academic research in all subjects is evi-
dence of a move towards criterion-finding as means of resolving the present confusion.

This analysis fits the re-evaluation of the aim of the PhD in Britain that was done as a consequence
of the expansion of university interests into non-traditional areas such as art and design. The re-
evaluation aimed to differentiate the fundamental content of research from the format in which it
was being delivered, i.e. the textual thesis. The analysis aimed to facilitate the identification of
qualities that could be demonstrated in a non-textual or practice-based way. As a result, many con-
tentious areas were identified and the conclusion that was reached was that:

88 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008

What is needed is a set of nationally agreed definitions of standards for the award of doctorates… framed in such a
way that they are sufficiently rigorous to secure demonstration of the qualities outlined at 3.2 above, but sufficiently
inclusive to allow all subjects to find expression within them.40

The UKCGE report also identified how this could be accomplished:

This inclusive model would involve either demonstrating/accepting that the activities and outcomes outlined in earlier
sections could reasonably be seen as consistent with a traditional scientific model, or broadening the model so as to
encompass the entire continuum from scientific to practice-based research. This would entail re-defining the former
in general terms of, for instance, the acquisition of relevant data, the exercise of critical and analytical skills, sustai-
ned and coherent argumentation, and clarity and (relative) permanence in presentation, rather than in the narrower
terms of formation and testing of hypotheses. Such shifts, which have occurred already in the system across all man-
ner of disciplines, perhaps need to be formally acknowledged and embraced. It would follow from this approach that
the creative process involved in practice-based doctorates can be seen as a form of research in its own right and, as
such, as equivalent to scientific research. Thus, the product and associated creative process presented as part of the
doctoral submission can be viewed as demonstrating the defining competences of doctorateness in the ‘same way’ as
in a traditional research based submission.41

This recommendation suggests that there would be a benefit in studying PbR. However this benefit
would not be to create a sub-group but rather to create a complementary approach to scientific
research. The report also highlighted that there is a large number of projects in the humanities
that, strictly speaking, do not fit the traditional and/or scientific model of research. These studies
are being developed in various areas of the humanities and not only in areas of the design practice,
and are moving in the direction of the model that is proposed for PbR. Solving the PbR problem the-
refore has ramifications well beyond design practice.

We therefore infer that the systematic analysis of concepts from the traditional model of academic
research in order to rebuild a model of research that is more in line with the needs of the areas of
design practice, is a worthwhile pursuit. Structuring of such a model would also increase the com-
petitive advantage of the academic community.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE CRITERION-BASED APPROACH

The criterion-based approach generates not just individual characteristics of research, but an inter-
locking network of concepts that are mutually dependent and together form an adequate model for
research in all disciplines: a unified theory. The resulting account can be evaluated in terms of
coherence. There are a number of core concepts around which such an account might be construc-
ted, and in this paper we have chosen to focus on the roles of dissemination, originality, and the
audience in the judgment of whether a work is research. It is our claim that the judgment and clas-
sification of a work as research is a judgment that is made by the audience and is an issue of its
reception, rather than being determined by the intention of the ´author´. This is because a work
must meet a few basic conditions in order to function as research, and these are centred on issues
of communication and audience. While the researcher must purposefully position the work, its
reception depends upon it meeting these conditions in the opinion of peers. At this stage of our
study we propose that there are three fundamental criteria that constitute three necessary and suf-
ficient conditions for a work to be research. Furthermore, we contrast them with one often-cited
condition that appears to be unnecessary: authorial intention. The necessary and sufficient conditi-
ons are dissemination, originality and context. Other requirements such as the identification of an
explicit research question are regarded as consequences of these conditions.

Research must be disseminated because it must influence the actions of other practitioners in the
field. This is what is meant by advancing knowledge or its interpretation. An advance is made by one
researcher and disseminated to others so that they benefit from that person’s work. Accounting for
his accomplishments Newton said: ´If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of
Giants.´.42 The opposite condition to dissemination would be a field in which everyone originated
knowledge for themselves, which would involve everyone ´reinventing the wheel´. While this would
be high in originality in the sense of lots of origination (cf. next condition), it would be low in effecti-

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler: Architectural Practice and Academic Research 89
veness. Research is a process that should make knowledge generation more efficient. By sharing
knowledge about the invention of wheels or their uses, we allow the creative energies of co-resear-
chers to be applied to more advanced topics. Research is a cumulative process even if one rejects
the [Modernist] notion of it being progressive.

There are some other inferences that can be drawn from this necessity to disseminate research
that involves communicating with the audience for research. While there is no guarantee that the
audience will see and understand the research, it is clearly more probable that the research will
impact on the audience if it is communicated through an effective channel. This is why high impact
journals are regarded more highly than low impact journals: because of the increased probability of
research published in high impact journals reaching the intended audience. The same applies to
exhibitions. If we put to one side the question of what role artefacts have in research, we can see
that if artefacts have a role in research, then disseminating them through high profile venues such
as Tate Modern will be more likely to reach the intended audience than dissemination through low
profile venues such as the local library. The intended audience is firstly the community of resear-
chers in the field, because by sharing knowledge and its interpretation with them we can maximize
the development of the field by diverting energies away from reinventing wheels. The audience also
includes other practicing professionals, the interested public, etc.

The second of the necessary and sufficient conditions is originality. Research must result in somet-
hing original that was not known or interpreted in this way before. This knowledge must be new for
the audience and not just new for the researcher. Although it is common to use the term ´research´
to describe what undergraduates do when they visit exhibitions or go to the library in order to find
out about a subject, research in the academic context means making a claim to new knowledge or
interpretation that nobody has hitherto known. We describe this difference as that between trivial
originality and consequential originality.

Several inferences can be drawn from this. It is part of the task of the researcher to demonstrate
that this knowledge is new. This is undertaken by what is known in doctoral studies as the literature
search, which of course includes searching all kinds of media appropriate to the subject. If this is
done thoroughly and systematically it is possible to undertake a gap analysis with which one can
substantiate the claim that the knowledge or interpretation in the research has not been claimed by
anyone previously. This is the definition of originality. Of course, this process cannot account for
knowledge that is known by somebody but is not made public. This returns us to the duty of disse-
mination. Knowledge that is held by one person and not disseminated is not recognized by anybody
else and if somebody else publishes this knowledge the attribution of intellectual property goes to
the researcher who makes the first public claim to the knowledge rather than to the one who first
thought it. This, famously, was the problem between Newton and Leibniz over who originated the
idea of the calculus.

The third condition is context. Research must be contextualised because by placing the outcome in
a critical context the researcher not only contributes to the argument in defence of originality but
also makes clear the way in which the knowledge develops or departs from existing modes of
understanding. This explains the use of the knowledge: the interpretation of what has been claimed.
Other researchers may find alternative uses or interpretations of the knowledge and this would
constitute new claims to originality.

Whether a work is a work of research is therefore a judgment about whether it meets these three
conditions. But one question is: a judgment by whom? To what extent is research produced by an
intentional act on the part of the researcher, and to what extent is work received by an audience
who understands it and recognizes its original contribution, and who therefore should change their
actions in response to it?

For appropriate reception by the audience, it has been said that the work must be disseminated.
Dissemination means not only putting the work out into the world, but also doing so in a targeted
way, so that it has a high probability of reaching an audience for whom this contribution will be con-
sequential. So dissemination already ties the researcher to the audience by assuming that they

90 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008

share the communication channel through which the work is disseminated, e.g. the journal or the
exhibition. To some extent we can see that for this to be effective there needs to be intentionality on
the part of the researcher.

We can also attribute intentionality to the audience, especially if the communication channel is
labelled as a research channel, e.g. a research journal or a research exhibition. This suggests that
the audience is open to being impacted by new knowledge. Hence the audience is potentially diffe-
rent from the audience for art-as-culture, design-as-consumption, music-as-recreation, architectu-
re-as-habitation, etc. We have already seen that originality can be problematic. Originality is not
solely novelty, but something that is a new and consequential development not just for the resear-
cher but also for the audience. Originality needs to be recognized for its novelty and for its conse-
quentiality. Originality is therefore closely linked to the third condition of contextualisation. The audi-
ence will only recognize the novelty of the work if they are familiar with, or presented with, a context
in which its novelty becomes apparent. For originality to be recognized above and beyond novelty for
the experiencing individual, requires an experienced individual. This role is often given to the critic
who is professionally exposed to a greater number of works than most other members of the audi-
ence, and we may defer the confirmation of originality to the critical reviewer. The consequences of
the originality, i.e. the consequences that we see in research, need to be unpacked by the resear-
cher. This involves both the linkage to previous work, the gap analysis of previous work, and the
argument for the benefits and consequences and impact of the present work. This argument is pur-
posefully put forward by the researcher, and it is a matter of the critical response of the audience
whether this argument is accepted as valid.

In meeting these three necessary conditions there is clearly an intention required on the part of the
researcher: the intention to disseminate, the intention to claim consequential originality, and the
intention to contextualize and argue for that claim. Thus we can conclude that intention is desirable
on the part of the researcher in order to claim a work as research. But this intention is matter of
positioning. These actions are prerequisites for the judgments that constitute the classification of
the work as research. It is the audience who makes the judgment as to whether these arguments
and claims have been successful and therefore the researcher’s intention is an unnecessary condi-
tion of that judgment. It is the audience that contains the practitioners and co-workers in the field
whose practice will be impacted by the work if it is received as both original and consequential. It is
the audience who will refer to the work and attribute intellectual ownership of the ideas to the rese-
archer. On this basis we can see that the judgment of the audience is more important in the classi-
fication of a work as research than the mere intentions of the researcher. Indeed, if the researcher
does not intend to present the work as research it may nonetheless be received as such. For exam-
ple, although Picasso denied that his work was research, this would not preclude subsequent gene-
rations evaluating his contribution as a research contribution.

CONCLUSION
We claim that the criterion-based approach to what constitutes design-related research in architec-
ture is productive. We have shown, for example, that it is possible to conduct a theoretical analysis
of the needs of the research community and from that analysis to extract at least three necessary
and sufficient conditions that must underpin research in any discipline. These resulting criteria can
be used to test whether an example of PbR constitutes research or not. The method also avoids the
circularity of previous approaches to this problem. Such an approach provides grounds for the judg-
ments about inclusion or exclusion of particular approaches formerly based on authorial preference
or appeals to tradition or practice. We believe these appeals are no longer sufficient to deal with the
problems facing architectural research, and in particular the understanding and evaluation of the
relationship of academic research to professional practice. Our current research continues to deve-
lop and refine these criteria.

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler: Architectural Practice and Academic Research 91
AUTHORS

Michael A.R. Biggs

Professor
University of Hertfordshire, England and University of Lund, Sweden
m.a.biggs@herts.ac.uk

Daniela Büchler
Doctor
University of Hertfordshire, England and University of Lund, Sweden
d.m.buchler@herts.ac.uk

92 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008

NOTES
1
Taylor, W.A. ´The Architect Looks at Research´ JAE 1 (1947): p.15.
2
The authors coordinate an international collaborative research project entitled ´academic research in areas of
design practice´, details of which are available online at http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/tvad/ar-
dp.html
3
Merton identified 4 norms of scientific research: Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, and
Organised Scepticism, known by the acronym CUDOS. Merton, R. The Normative Structure of Science, 1942.
However, these norms might be more recognizable in the creative and cultural industries if considered in the
context of qualitative research, e.g. ´transferability´ and ´generalizability´ instead of ´Universalism´, cf. Lincoln
and Guba ´The Only Generalization is: there is no Generalization´ in: Gomm, Hammersley and Foster Case Study
Method. London: Sage, 2000, pp.27-44.´
4
H. Dunin-Woyseth and J. Michl ´Towards a Disciplinary Identity of the Making Professions´. Available online at
URL http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2360/english-only.htm [accessed March 2008].
5
e.g. Knowles, J. and A. Cole, Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 2008
6
cf. Council for National Academic Awards [CNAA] Handbook 1996.
7
´Tacit and experiential knowledge´ are terms that have gained currency in business studies, cf. Polanyi, M. The
Tacit Dimension (New York: Doubleday, 1966). In education the concept of ´reflexive method´ is influential, cf.
Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (London: Arena, 1991). ´Grounded theo-
ry´ is influential in the social sciences, e.g. Strauss, A., & J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques (London: Sage Publications, 1990).
8
e.g. Nelson R.R. and S.G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge MA: Bellnap, 1982.
9
Gibbons, M., H. Nowotny, et al. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications, 1994.
10
e.g. Foray, D., P. David, and R. Cowan. ‘The Explicit Economics of Codification’ Industrial and Corporate Change,
9 (2), (2000) pp.211-253.
11
e.g. Cross, N., ´Forty Years of Design Research´ Design Studies 28 (1) (2007) pp.1-4.
12
e.g. Fendler, L. ´Teacher Reflection in a Hall of Mirrors: Historical Influences and Political Reverberations´
Educational Researcher 32 (3) (2003) pp.16-25.
13
The RAE is a quinquenial quality review of research in British Universities that forms the basis of the allocation
of government funding. The criteria for determining the quality rating for the forthcoming 2008 exercise can be
found in Panel Criteria and Working Methods: Panel O (London: HEFCE, 2006). When evaluating the research that
is produced in various areas, the RAE panels give grades that go from 1* (one star) to 4* (four star). However,
the qualitative distinction between these grades is not considered to be clear, especially between 2* and 3*
which are respectively described as research that demonstrates ´Quality that is internationally excellent in
terms of originality, significance and rigor but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excel-
lence´; and ´Quality that is recognized internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigor´.
14
e.g. Scrivener, S. ´The Practical Implications of Applying a Theory of Practice Based Research: a Case Study´
Working Papers in Art And Design 3 (2004) [unpaginated electronic journal]. URL
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol3/ssfull.html [accessed April 2007]. Universities that
have adopted specific PbR doctoral routes include Coventry, Dundee, and Oxford Brookes.
15
e.g. Kent Institute
16
Practice-Based Doctorates in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design (London: UKCGE, 1997.) §5.3.
17
At the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of São Paulo this division is reflected in the
departmental names: Department of Architectural and Design Aesthetics History (AUH), Department of
Architectural Technology (AUT) and Department of Architectural Project Design (AUP). In the case of the AUH
and AUT departments, there is a direct connection between the content of the graduate modules and the rese-
arch that is conducted in each department. For example, research that is conducted in AUH can make a critical
analysis of an architectural work and in AUT it is possible to evaluate buildings, materials and production pro-
cesses. It is common that research that is developed in the AUP department adopts the same methods or inve-
stigates the same questions as the other two departments. It is therefore difficult to consider the contribution of
the design activity to research or issues that are relevant to that practice through the use of these conventional
methods.
18
Perrone, R.A.C. ´A Pesquisa em Projeto e o Projeto como Pesquisa´ Apresentações/Ponências do XIX CLEFA.
(São Paulo: UPM/UDEFAL/UDUAL, 2001), pp.255-257.

Michael A.R. Biggs and Daniela Büchler: Architectural Practice and Academic Research 93
19
Lattes is the Brazilian national database of research institutions and individuals. URL
http://lattes.cnpq.br/index.htm [accessed April 2007].
20
Friedman, K. ´Art, Design and Research: the New Challenges of the Making Disciplines.´ Refsum, G. and P.
Butenschøn (eds.) Kunsthøgskolen i Oslo Årsbok 2004 (Oslo: National College of the Arts, 2004), pp.199-214.
21
Biggs, M.A.R. and D. Büchler. ´Rigour and Practice-based Research.´ Design Issues 23 (3) pp.62-69
22
Vetenskapsrådet ´Review of the Year 2005-2006´
23
Michael Biggs, was one of these visiting professors, assisted by Daniela Büchler.
24
e.g. the recommendations in Evaluation of Swedish Architectural Research 1995–2005, Stockholm: FORMAS,
2006, p.21
25
AKAD http://www.akad.se/losang.htm
26
Biggs, M.A.R. and D. Büchler. ´Rigour and Practice-based Research.´ Design Issues 23 (3) pp.62-69
27
Perrone, R.A.C. ´A Pesquisa em Projeto e o Projeto como Pesquisa´ Apresentações/Ponências do XIX CLEFA.
(São Paulo: UPM/UDEFAL/UDUAL, 2001), pp.255-257.
28
The original text is in Portuguese: ´possuam um método e/ou um tratamento sistemáticos capazes de estabe-
lecer reflexões ou conclusões acerca de alguns objetos de estudo´ Ibid: p.255.
29
The original text is in Portuguese: ´as atividades de projeto como atividades de pesquisa´ Ibid: p.255
30
The original text is in Portuguese: ´tentamos fazer uma interpretação econômica sem sermos economistas,
tentamos fazer uma interpretação sociológica, sem sermos sociólogos, e assim por diante.´ Sanovicz, A.V. 1990.
´A Pesquisa na Área de Projeto.´ Natureza e Prioridades. (Anais mimeografados do seminário Natureza e
Prioridades da Pesquisa em Arquitetura e Urbanismo FAUUSP, 1990), p.111.
31
This approach is epitomised by the ‘first generation design methods’ in the 1960s according to Bayazit in:
Bayazit, N. ‘Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research’ Design Issues 20 (1) pp.16-29.
32
Nigel Cross describes this pole by finding three locations of design knowledge: people, processes and pro-
ducts, in: Cross, N. ‘Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation’ Design Issues 15 (2) pp.5-10
33
e.g. the Arts and Humanities Research Council [AHRC], Research Assessment Exercise [RAE], Economic and
Social Research Council [ESRC], etc.
34
Perrone, R.A.C. ´A Pesquisa em Projeto e o Projeto como Pesquisa´ Apresentações/Ponências do XIX CLEFA.
(São Paulo: UPM/UDEFAL/UDUAL, 2001), pp.255-257.
35
Biggs, M.A.R.. ´On Method: The Problem of Objectivity´ Durling, D. and K. Friedman (eds.) Doctoral Education
in Design: Foundations for the Future (Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 2000), pp.209-214.
36
The Research Training Initiative has published a range of online resources. The project was initiated by Darren
Newbury who specifically addressed the issue of knowledge in his paper ´Knowledge and Research in Art and
Design.´ Design Studies 17 (2) pp.215-219. The Non-Traditional Knowledge and Communication Project is hosted
by the University of Hertfordshire. The project website may be found at http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_rese-
arch/tvad/ntkc.html. Research into Practice is a biennial international conference whose proceedings from 2002
are published in the electronic journal Working Papers in Art and Design 2. http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/rese-
arch/papers/wpades/vol2 [accessed April 2007].
37
e.g. PhD Design (PHD-DESIGN@jiscmail.ac.uk) and Practice-led research (AHRC-PL-REVIEW@jiscmail.ac.uk)
accessible via http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk
38
For example, a recent study was undertaken for the AHRC that generated a database of PbR PhD theses, but
the exact criteria for differentiating PbR from traditional research is not clearly set out.
39
Practice-Based Doctorates in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design (London: UKCGE, 1997), §2.2.
40
Ibid: §4.3.
41
Ibid: §4.4.
42
Newton to Hooke, 5 Feb. 1676

94 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1-2008