Raisbeck, P (2010) Investigating design as research: Understanding R&D activities in Australian architectural practices. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Within the property and construction industry architectural design is generally seen as a problem solving activity which meets client needs. Through design, architects respond to a brief by using their design expertise to visualize and integrate together different building systems. However as buildings have become more complex architects are beginning to argue that design is not simply a problem solving activity in its own right. In this view, design is a research process which is unique. However, this view is quite different from accepted norms of what constitutes scientific research or research and development. Moreover in Australia very little is known about the R&D activities of architects and how these relate to the concept of design as research. Understanding how different practices undertake R&D and how much of this might be embedded in architectural design activities is important. Four case studies of architectural practices employing semi-structured interviews will be presented. The data gathered from these case studies were used to structure a broader online survey which was distributed to 1100 architects and received 92 responses. Architects conduct a range of what they identify as original research activities but few architects document or formalize these activities. For this reason identifying the research activities that architects conduct through the design and project delivery process is a first step in understanding how design activities drive construction innovation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; design; research and development; research methods |
| Index terms: | research and development, architectural practice, building system, problem solving, architect, construction industry, construction innovation, norms, project delivery, architectural design, interview, case study, survey, Australia |
| Subjects: | project delivery, business, data collection methods, profession, engineering systems, building construction, sociology, research management, industry analysis, decision-making and reasoning, design practice, Geography |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here