Three views on the RAE Design and the computer. RAE 1: a tool for fragmentation
Auteur(s): |
Richard Coyne
|
---|---|
Médium: | article de revue |
Langue(s): | anglais |
Publié dans: | arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, décembre 2002, n. 4, v. 6 |
Page(s): | 292-296 |
DOI: | 10.1017/s1359135503211829 |
Abstrait: |
I read with interest the detailed arguments presented by our colleagues at the Bartlett, complaining of the treatment of architecture by Unit of Assessment (UoA) panel 33 (arq 6/3, pp203–207). We and our colleagues from other disciplines at the University of Edinburgh were shocked at Architecture's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) result. We had been confident of at least a 4, but were awarded a 3a. We spent a disappointing day with the architectural historian on the panel to ascertain how we could have been so wrong in the internal estimation of our rating. I also had private discussions with another architectural panel member. Those on the panel we spoke to seemed to know little about our work. Our portfolios of refereed designs were not called for. It seems that our groundbreaking books linking the history of engineering and architecture were too far removed from what engineers usually do, and were not rated. Our books and articles on theories of design and information technology seem to have been of no interest. |
- Informations
sur cette fiche - Reference-ID
10362420 - Publié(e) le:
12.08.2019 - Modifié(e) le:
12.08.2019