0
  • DE
  • EN
  • FR
  • International Database and Gallery of Structures

Advertisement

Architectural research and disciplinarity

Author(s):
Medium: journal article
Language(s): English
Published in: arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, , n. 2, v. 8
Page(s): 141-147
DOI: 10.1017/s135913550400017x
Abstract:

There are at present considerable concerns with how architectural research will be assessed in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) of 2008. InRAE2001, most architectural research was submitted to one of three Units of Assessment (UoA): 33Built Environment, 60History of Art, Architecture and Design, and 64Art 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.

Structurae cannot make the full text of this publication available at this time. The full text can be accessed through the publisher via the DOI: 10.1017/s135913550400017x.
  • About this
    data sheet
  • Reference-ID
    10362341
  • Published on:
    12/08/2019
  • Last updated on:
    12/08/2019
 
Structurae cooperates with
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE)
e-mosty Magazine
e-BrIM Magazine