0
  • DE
  • EN
  • FR
  • Internationale Datenbank und Galerie für Ingenieurbauwerke

Anzeige

Autor(en):
Medium: Fachartikel
Sprache(n): Englisch
Veröffentlicht in: arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, , n. 4, v. 21
Seite(n): 344-346
DOI: 10.1017/s1359135518000052
Abstrakt:

Are current definitions of ‘research’ stifling ideas that might be relevant to our discipline? This paper explores how a drive toward empirical research - while linking architecture to issues, facts, and data important to architecture's relevance - also drives architecture away from speculative ideas necessary to imagining a better future. This observation is briefly examined in the four spheres of design, history/theory, teaching, and advocacy. In design, the move in research from program to production to mapping may be seen as a form of avoiding the very thing most needing ideas/research – how to change the way we conceive of design work. In history/theory, the drive to archival specificity may be seen as fear of speculation. In teaching, empirical models emphasising sustainability that are evidence of ‘real research’ may leave behind theory altogether. And in advocating for a more empowered profession, the requirement for financial data and economic validation as proof for necessitating change may miss the larger problem of our current self-imposed identity as architects. Ideas that are not justified by current norms of research are still necessary.

Structurae kann Ihnen derzeit diese Veröffentlichung nicht im Volltext zur Verfügung stellen. Der Volltext ist beim Verlag erhältlich über die DOI: 10.1017/s1359135518000052.
  • Über diese
    Datenseite
  • Reference-ID
    10354825
  • Veröffentlicht am:
    13.08.2019
  • Geändert am:
    13.08.2019
 
Structurae kooperiert mit
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE)
e-mosty Magazine
e-BrIM Magazine