Strange or real research opportunity?

A new formal claim that is making our lives difficult in education?in fact, albeit with some condescension on the part of practitioners, historical research and technical research are accepted as accepted topics of architectural research. It is true that historical research, undeniably necessary for the foundation of architectural culture, fits into the already established criteria of art history and the humanities, of course with the nuances that the object of study brings. Although begun with remarkable results by our great architectural historians, who also laid the foundations of the discipline, it has lagged far behind all other European countries, where ancient and recent history has been passed through fine interpretive sites, and publications and studies abound. Here there is still a lot of work to be done; a lot of unresearched material, although in recent years the gap has narrowed with the freshness and consistency of some published works and doctoral studies that open new research perspectives (this category includes research on the recent period). In the same situation is urban history, although its beginnings as a discipline were also remarkably settled before the war. Although closer to current practice, technological research is also relatively unspecific, responding to the criteria of applied sciences, and suffers from the paucity of an industrially funded research infrastructure. Perhaps affiliations to research bases abroad could propel it forward, but the chances are so far slim and attempts rare or heroic.

Lately, in addition to these directions, the Western academic world has (not without some ^discomfort1) been discussing a form of research designed to respond to the specific nature of architecture as a discipline. Attractively and - to put it bluntly - circumstantially very conveniently called project-based research (sometimes project-based research, project-research... , translations of various English names, also in search of the right meaning), the idea was quickly embraced because it seemed to easily meet the conditions imposed by the criteria for promotion in teaching. Too easy, I dare say: we design, therefore we research! A splendid compromise, a confusion between the artistic and the discursive, a possible alibi to stop doing research and only earn your PhD or academic promotion by design! A kind of ostrich-cum-cum.

Moreover, even though somewhat condescendingly, practitioners accept historical research and technical research as types of architectural research. Undoubtedly useful to the founding of architectural culture, historical research ranges indeed within the already established criteria ruling art history and the humanities, with, of course, the particular nuances of its object. Although kick-started with remarkable results by our great architectural historians, who also laid its grounds as a discipline, it now lags behind its counterparts from all the other European countries, where both ancient and recent history have been sifted through a fine interpretation sieve and where publications and studies are abundant. We still have a long way to go; there is still a lot of un-researched material, although in recent years the gap has been narrowing due to the novelty and consistency of published papers and doctoral theses opening up new perspectives for research (the most recent research falls in this category as well). The same goes for urban history, despite its remarkably well laid foundation during the antebellum period. Despite being closer to the current practice, technological research is also nonspecific, having to comply with the criteria of applied science and diminished by the poverty of a research infrastructure lacking necessary funding from the industry. Affiliation to foreign research facilities could probably revive it, but chances are for the time being limited and such attempts scarce or outright heroic.

Alongside these lines, the western academia has lately brought to attention (not without a certain ^awkwardness1) a form of research meant to address the specificity of architecture as a discipline. Attractively and - let us be frank - given the circumstances, conveniently called research in design (sometimes design-based research, design-research... , in its various English versions, searching for the right meaning as well), the idea has been rapidly embraced because it seems readily compliant with the requirements set for climbing the career ladder in education. Too easily, I dare say: we design, therefore we research! A splendid compromise, a mix-up between the artistic and the discursive, a possible alibi for putting research aside and getting one's Ph. D. or promotion in academia only based on one's designs! A kind of fabled creature.