The Design Journal

An International Journal for All Aspects of Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20

Architectural design research: Drivers of practice

Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir & Sam Jacoby

To cite this article: Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir & Sam Jacoby (2022) Architectural design research:
Drivers of practice, The Design Journal, 25:4, 657-674, DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2022.2081303

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2081303

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 06 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2374

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20
THE DESIGN JOURNAL
2022, VOL. 25, NO. 4, 657–674
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2081303

Architectural design research: Drivers of practice

Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir and Sam Jacoby
Royal College of Art, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Research, professional practice, and learning in architecture Architectural design
are becoming increasingly integrated as the understanding research, design research,
of research and practice is transforming and research practice-based research
assessment criteria are expanding. This changing research
landscape has created more diverse iterative and cyclical
design research processes and opened new areas of explor-
ation and experimentation in architecture. Building on
existing tripartite design research models, such as research
‘into’, ‘for’, and ‘through’ or research stages of ‘processes’,
‘products/outcome’, and ‘performance/impact’, this paper
uses the concepts of ‘process-driven’, ‘output-driven’, and
‘impact’ to analyse and classify current architectural design
research practices. This framework is used to clarify how
research criteria are differently understood in academia and
practice, explore the challenges arising from translation
between them, and analyse the methods commonly used.
While focusing on the UK context, the paper offers transfer-
able insights while using some international case studies.

Introduction
Research is increasingly assessed in terms of public impact. For example, the
Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK introduced impact criteria to
emphasise the value of research beyond academia (REF 2014). This was in
response to a growing focus on measuring research not only in terms of
benefits for an academic but increasingly also for a professional and public
audience. This has challenged the meaning of research and diversified its
processes, methods, and outcomes. As research and its assessment is histor-
ically rooted in academia, tension has arisen when framing research in prac-
tice through terms familiar to the academy. This study asks how research
criteria might be understood differently in architectural practice and

CONTACT Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir [email protected] Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, MEF
University, Ayazaga Cad. No. 4 Maslak, Sariyer, Istanbul, 34396, Turkey.
Corresponding author was a visiting researcher at the time.
ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
658 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

academia, what challenges arise from their translation, and what methods
and approaches are commonly used in architectural design research?
Research in practice is regarded as a process in which design practice
becomes an accepted and qualified part of academic research (Joost et al.
2016). However, this relationship is not always that clear, as design can be
considered a discipline (Cross 1982) that has not been historically part of
traditional research. Likewise, while architecture has its distinct disciplinary
knowledge (Till 2005) and architectural practice can contribute to its know-
ledge production, architectural design research in non-academic organisa-
tions in the private sector, public sector, and third sector is only recently
becoming more prominent in research in architecture.
A changing economy and increased competition are leading to growing
design research in architectural firms that is naturally practice-based (Groat
and Wang 2013), with architects becoming interested in the evidence base
that can explain the impact of architecture on the built environment and the
benefits for its users. This shift is evident in the importance given in the UK
by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) to knowledge acquirement
(Founding Charter of RIBA 1837), with their vision for 2020 underpinned by
innovation and improving practice effectiveness and outcomes through
research and knowledge sharing (RIBA 2014), which is identified as one of
the five key principles for the future of the architectural profession (RIBA
2016). There is thus a deliberate blurring of the traditional boundaries
between practice, research in practice, and established academic
research practices.
The key methods and means of architectural design research, such as
drawing and writing, have been invaluable to the architect for over 500 years
(Hill 2013). However, debates on architectural design research are still emerg-
ing, with definitions greatly varying. Architectural design research is used in
this paper to denote practice-based or practice-led research focused on
architectural design practice and design thinking (Fraser 2013; Luck 2019).
Research frameworks, manuals, commissions, research councils, professional
bodies, academia, and practice have all established different sets of criteria,
classification, subject coverage, range, and focus for research in architecture,
but are often dominated by an academic perspective. In addition, even
though architectural design research has commonalities with design research
in other disciplines (Luck 2019), there is a broad range of design research
and methodologies in architecture, all with different interpretations of what
common core research criteria such as ‘originality’, ‘significance’, and ‘rigour’
might mean (Biggs and Bu €chler 2007).
The following is a critical analysis of how these various definitions overlap
or differ, how architectural design research is assessed, and how the value of
research is more generally understood in architectural practice. The United
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 659

Kingdom is used as a context for the discussion, as it has a long-established

tradition of nationally evaluating the quality of research since its first
Research Assessment Exercise in 1986, however, cases for study include rele-
vant examples from outside the UK and focus on larger research-intensive
architectural firms. The shortcomings and potentials of architectural design
research will be discussed, and possible actions to enhance research practi-
ces and process will be suggested based on insights gained from an analysis
of the processes and outputs of current design research in architec-
tural practices.

Overview
Architecture has been taught in England at least since the 1840s, when the
University College London appointed Thomas Leverton Donaldson
(1795–1885) as its first chair of architecture. But research in art, design, and
architecture has only relatively recently gained greater importance in the UK.
When polytechnics obtained university status following the Further and
Higher Education Act of 1992, a previous focus on practical training had to
make way for a new academic focus (Rust, Mottram, and Till 2007). This also
applied to architecture, which had been widely taught at polytechnics. With
this, a reconsideration of the relationship between practice and research had
to take place and practice-based research was increasingly considered as for-
mal research.
In 1999, the Bologna Declaration formally acknowledged within the
European Higher Education Area that research in design-oriented disciplines
is equal to that in other disciplines (Geiser 2008). Pedagogy thus became
important to bridging how academic researchers are practising design and
how architectural practitioners are researching design (Craig and Ozga-Lawn
2015). For example, while traditionally research questions are identified at
the outset, in design research, ‘the questions only emerge once certain proc-
esses of making and designing are already engaged with’ (Rendell 2003).
Therefore, whether in the academy or practice, research and design were
seen as opposites that attract, and explorations of architectural representa-
tion were seen as essential to architectural design research (Hill 2003).
Today, the common research assessment criteria of ‘originality’,
‘significance’, and ‘rigour’ in its different disguises are widely applied to all
three main types of research: basic, applied, and experimental research
(OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2015;
Innovate UK 2020). However, when framing practice-based research, contra-
dictions arise from how established research definitions in the academy are
often less relevant to practice. The tension has become apparent in design-
oriented disciplines such as architecture, and led to several debates on its
660 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

meaning, types, and stages over the last decades (Frayling 1993; Archer
1995; Cross 1999; Rendell 2004; Till 2005; Jenkins, Forsyth, and Smith 2005;
Geiser 2008; Fraser 2013; Hensel and Nilsson 2019). Despite differences in
approach, they have all consistently argued for the need to establish a
unique definition of design-related research, but also continued to predom-
inantly frame this in terms arising in an academic context.
Perhaps most influential, if we take Frayling’s (1993) famous tripartite
model for practice-related research, traditional research falls largely within
his ‘into’ and ‘for’ practice classification, whereas research ‘through’ practice
opens new research trajectories and means, commonly referred to now as
practice-based research. Frayling’s strict division of design research methods
and outputs has been questioned, especially by Australasian schools of
design research that foreground multi-modal forms of enquiry that are often
linked to issues of representation (Wiszniewski and French 2019). At the
same time, his model has been advanced by others to better define the
meaning, processes, methods, and outcomes of architectural design research.
In a prominent example, written as a position paper for the RIBA Research
Committee, Till (2005) divides the stages of architectural research into
‘architectural processes’, ‘architectural products’, and ‘architectural perform-
ances’. His model tries to integrate research in both the academy and prac-
tice, considers interdisciplinarity, and justifies architecture as a research
discipline. A more recent comprehensive review of design research in archi-
tecture edited by Fraser (2013), similar to Till distinguishes research types by
stressing differences in ‘processes’, ‘outcomes’, and ‘impact’. A version of this
tripartite classification is adopted in this paper to clarify and discuss architec-
tural design research.
Building on Till’s and Fraser’s distinction of research stages according to
notions of ‘processes’, ‘products/outcome’, and ‘performances/impact’, which
can be read as a differentiation of Frayling’s definition of research ‘into’ prac-
tice, in the following the paper uses the terms ‘process-driven’, ‘output-
driven’, and ‘impact’ to combine these and differentiate research outcomes.
The proposed is also like a research classification advanced by Rust,
Mottram, and Till (2007) in ‘Practice-led research in Art, Design and
Architecture’, in which research projects are distinguished as producing
either an artefact or process or as being located between these two. In this
study, process-driven research is understood in relation to contextual rele-
vance (proposal), documentation (process) and output (product), whereas
output-driven research in terms of immediate design outcomes. While out-
put-driven research often includes research processes, unlike in process-
driven research, these are typically not planned but iterative. As the different
forms of enquiry are all concerned with research ‘into’ practice, there are nat-
urally some overlaps between them. Especially impact is created by both
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 661

process-driven and output-driven research and achieved through—at times

similar—architectural design practices and design thinking specific to archi-
tectural design research. In the following, the overlaps, and differences of
process- and output-driven research are analysed by first focussing on the
methods used and then discussing their relation to impact.
Conventional research definitions tend to prioritise processes over out-
puts, emphasising three commonly expected key features: research ques-
tions, research context, and research methods. While architectural design
research is also defined as a structured process (Collins 2014), how this pro-
cess uses the means and methods of practice is often not well defined, with
Fraser, for example, simply referring to activities such as a site review, a visit
to an archive, or an experiment with materials. In another example, the RIBA
generalises the forms of research in architectural practice as concerned with
knowledge management, design development, formal research projects
(sometimes funded), and practitioner PhDs (RIBA 2014).
A key problem arising from this is that the value and purpose of design
can be understood differently in academia and practice. While in academia
the focus is on conceptualising a problem, with design used to explore new
directions for theory construction (Janssens 2012), in practice the purpose of
design tends to be more immediate in finding tangible solutions to concrete
design problems. Thus, while academic research in architecture typically
focuses on a larger (or theoretical) question or problem, architectural design
research tends to foreground a design- or practice-related problem.
At the same time, a widely discussed challenge of research in general is
that researchers often struggle to communicate research efficiently to public
audiences, which is central to achieving research impact (Till 2005).
Especially publicly funded research is impact focused (Samuel 2017), which is
measured in relation to the value it brings to a wider non-academic audi-
ence. However, with architectural design often naturally having a public
audience, stakeholders, and clients as well as diverse communities of practi-
tioners, and architectural design research being closely linked to design and
its audiences, it has more diverse networks for dissemination and a strong
basis to achieving impact.
The value of architectural design research, especially when conducted in
practice, commonly lies in tangible research output, which is both its
strength and potential. However, it is important to remember that
‘frameworks of architectural value should focus on processes of architecture
and the benefits that architectural skillsets bring to a project’ (Samuel et al.
2015). For example, funded by research grants and external partnerships, the
global architecture and planning firm Gensler has a Research Institute that is
committed to unlocking new solutions for practical design questions
or issues.
662 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

To further draw out some of the key differences in how research can be
understood, in the following architectural design research is discussed
through examples of process-driven and output-driven research and the
impact they produce.

Process-driven research in architecture

According to the RIBA report How Architects Use Research (2014), in archi-
tectural practices research can range from being structured and general to
highly process driven. Frequent areas of research focus are environmental
sustainability and energy efficiency, the analysis of precedents, and research
into materials, products, and construction techniques. Another emerging
area of research is public participation in design, especially processes of co-
design with tangible outcomes (Luck 2018). While public research funding
directly accessible to architectural practices is still not common, joint
research and knowledge exchange between academy and practice
is increasing.
Research funding for higher education institutions or commercial busi-
nesses applies different assessment criteria of research, which determines the
research supported and produced as well as the definition of research itself.
But there are even critical differences within the same sector, for example,
the Higher Education Statistics Agency requires institutions to conform with
the Frascati definition of research that uses the five criteria ‘novel’, ‘creative’,
‘uncertain’, ‘systematic’, and ‘transferable’ (OECD 2015), while the REF high-
lights the importance of ‘process’, ‘novelty’, and ‘effective sharing’ of know-
ledge in the research evaluation (REF 2021). Yet, a privileging of process-
driven research and the importance of public research value is generally
shared by all.
Process-driven research undertaken in architectural practice generally
relates to (1) experimentation with materials and prototypes, (2) participatory
design, and (3) quantitative research. This can produce both tangible and
intangible research outcomes and might follow an academic, experimental,
or intuitive process. In either case, the research process, including data col-
lection, documentation, and analysis normally follows a planned process.
Similar to the dominant ‘academic’ research definition within higher educa-
tion institutions (Jenkins, Forsyth, and Smith 2005), process-driven research
can be characterised by its contextual relevance (proposal), documentation
(process), and output (product). To better understand process-driven
research in architectural practice and to discuss it in terms of emerging
strengths and weaknesses, the following cases offer clarification of its key
characteristics.
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 663

First, experimentation with materials and prototypes is common in large

practices such as Arup, Buro Happold, Foster þ Partners, and Zaha Hadid
Architects. For instance, Foster þ Partners have a Material Research Centre
and Information Centre, which studies current and new materials, products,
companies, technology, innovation, sustainability, and technical issues dir-
ectly relevant to the development of their practice. Examples of this research
are the Lunar Habitation (2012) and Mars Habitat (2015) projects that
explored adaptive building systems in extreme environments. For Lunar
Habitation and its research into the possibility of 3D printing buildings,
Foster þ Partners were part of a consortium that included the European
Space Agency (ESA). Based on this research, Foster þ Partners later proposed
the Mars Habitat for a NASA-backed competition. Since these were process-
driven research projects, their insights and findings were well documented
to ensure the transferability of knowledge. The projects were thus planned
for a variety of design outcomes and with the intention to inform
future projects.
Second, participatory design research usually takes place at a building or
neighbourhood scale within an urban context. Gensler, Hans Haenlein
Architects, Levitt Bernstein, Spark Architects, muf, FLUID, A Small Studio, and
Golzari-NG Architects are some of the many practices of different size using
participatory design research in their work. A notable example of process-
driven research using participation is DWELL (Designing for Well-being in
Environments for Later Life), an architectural design research project funded
by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Arts and Humanities
Research Council (AHRC) and led by the practice-focused academic and prac-
tising architect Sarah Wigglesworth from the University of Sheffield. The
multidisciplinary project included researchers from the fields of architecture,
urban planning, and public health and worked with local participants, hous-
ing providers, developers, and Sheffield City Council. Interviews and focus
group discussions were conducted before inviting residents to participate in
the co-design of their neighbourhood. The DWELL project built upon partici-
patory research traditions found in the social sciences and used an evidence-
based approach to co-design, which the project termed ‘participatory design
research’. One of the key strengths of this research approach is a cyclical and
interdisciplinary research process of designing and reflection, in which ideas
can be tested and refined (Park, Ziegler, and Wigglesworth 2016).
Third, practices including ArchiMetrics, Baca Architects, Feilden Clegg
Bradley Studios, HASSELL, Hawkins Brown, Hutchison Locke, and Monk (HLM)
Architects, and Hunt Thompson Associates (HTA) use quantitative methods
in their research such as Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE),1 Building
Performance Evaluation (BPE), and Building Information Modelling (BIM). For
664 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

example, HTA conducted the Home Performance Labelling pilot study with
Building LifePlans (BLP) Insurance for the Housing Forum with the help of a
range of architects including Alison Brooks Architects, Levitt Bernstein, PRP,
and Pollard Thomas Edwards, who provided the BIM models for analysis. The
pilot project delivered information to users about the performance of their
homes and how to improve them. Evidence-based data was collected from
project collaborators and assessed using BIM and BLP’s Butterfly tool. The
key strength of this research approach is robust and integrated documenta-
tion of the processes and data that are analysed to develop research insights
and findings. Being fully integrated with practice activities, this type of
research is particularly attractive to clients with a long-term interest in their
building performance (Coucill and Samuel 2013) and offers a cyclical process
of research in which one project informs the next and its design process.
To summarise, process-driven architectural design research produces more
conventionally recognised research value, since it has a planned research
design and process. Projects are usually part of collaborations between
industry and academia, include a robust documentation of the research pro-
cess, and typically produce outcomes with transferable knowledge and
insights. Furthermore, they often represent cyclical research processes that
inform future projects. For instance, outputs and evaluation criteria of quanti-
tative process-driven research such as POE/BPE are usually made publicly
available. However, there are also potential weaknesses. The impact and
value of process-driven research can be less certain, as it does not necessar-
ily produce instantly tangible results or applications and might have more
long-term benefits. For example, the value of research to the client in quanti-
tative process-driven research such as BPE might not be immediate or clear
in some cases, especially where the client only has a short-term interest in
a building.

Output-driven research in architecture

Archer (1995) states that research is ‘a systematic inquiry whose goal is com-
municable knowledge’, which has become a widely accepted definition of
research (Fraser 2013). Architects produce knowledge through design ideas
and practice (Fraser 2013), with architectural design research increasingly
expected to form part of the process when designing a project (Schumacher
2002). However, there is an ongoing discussion about when an architectural
design process or practice-based studies might constitute research. Till
(2005) argues that designing a building is not research, but the processes
leading to the object and its aftermath are a means of knowledge produc-
tion. To consider design outcomes as architectural design research, a set of
criteria can be considered that need to be met: design outcome should be
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 665

reproducible in different contexts and the relevance of research questions or

problems must extend beyond that of the design of a single building.
Knowledge production through architectural design research requires that
the means of practice are both instrumental to a research inquiry (Rust,
Mottram, and Till 2007) and form an intrinsic part of the project undertaken
(RIBA 2014), must be aimed at deepening understanding, and provide tan-
gible outcomes for practice (Vaughan 2017). Most design research in archi-
tectural practice is therefore technical and functional in nature and project-
focused (RIBA 2014). The most immediate and tangible research outcomes
are usually a design solution for a building, a structural system, a prototype,
or a material component. Moreover, since communication is more directly
integrated into the aims and outcomes of practice, design research in archi-
tecture often exploits its ability to engage with the public in new ways such
as participation, performances, exhibitions, and publications.
But output-driven research is harder to differentiate from architectural
practice itself, therefore, is less common than process-driven research and
largely undertaken within industry. However, the government’s vision for the
UK construction industry for 2025 emphasises the importance of research for
commercial innovation to support the transition to a digital economy and
the rise of smart construction (BIS 2013). This shows that governmental sup-
port for research in the UK construction industry and thereby practice-based
research in general but also in architecture is growing.
Output-driven architectural design research can be generalised as (1)
immediate design outcomes and (2) studies of elements and material com-
ponents. It generates stand-alone projects that offer a singular design solu-
tion as an output, normally derived from a unique or project-specific
research process. These research projects are directly linked to practical
experience. The following cases clarify the strengths and weaknesses of out-
put-driven research in architectural practice.
First, CSK Architects’ research project Solid Cork Building Envelope
(2015–2018) is a good example for output-driven research, as it led to an
award-winning architectural project, the Cork House (2019). The research was
part-funded by Innovate UK and the EPSRC under the 2015 Building Whole Life
Performance competition. Matthew Barnett Howland and Oliver Wilton started
initial design and prototyping at the Bartlett School of Architecture by experi-
menting with solid expanded cork blocks to explore the application of plant-
based materials in construction. In collaboration with the University of Bath for
structural testing and the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to evaluate fire
performance and rain tightness, a small Cork Cabin prototype was created,
with insights generated from it then further developed in the Cork House pro-
ject. This is hence the design outcome of an iterative and planned design and
research process that follows several stages of experimentation and
666 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

prototyping. Although having qualities of process-driven research, this research

project is aimed at a tangible singular output using an iterative
research process.
De Rijke Marsh Morgan (dRMM) also use experimentation with materials
and prototyping in their Timber Studio research. Their work established and
validated the structural use of hardwood for cross-laminated timber (CLT) for
the first time in architecture and was realised in their award-winning
Kingsdale School (2004) project. The school design was, alongside material
experimentation, a participatory project undertaken in collaboration with the
school and the local community, with the aim of developing a new model of
retrofitting. dRMM designed and developed projects at varying scales in the
following, based on their research on this new material technology, ranging
from installations, temporary structures, prototypes, and single units to that
of housing developments. The research and innovation represented by the
CLT studies is an integral part of the larger practice research and practice
agenda to reduce carbon emission in the built environment.
Second, a well-known example of research in architectural practice is
AMO, the research, branding, and publication arm of the Office for
Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), co-founded by Rem Koolhaas and led by
Samir Bantal. AMO’s work aims to produce architectural knowledge in forms
other than that of a building (De Graaf 2016). The outputs of their research
largely follow an iterative and speculative process, inhabiting a space situ-
ated somewhere between design and the formulation of new (research)
agendas, in other words, between the territory of the profession and the cli-
ent. The research also feeds directly into the creative design processes of
OMA, in cases such as the Seattle Public Library (2004).
Third, UNStudio is another well-known example of output-driven research
in practice. Founded by Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, it has two dedi-
cated research teams, UNSKnowledge and UNSFutures. In 2019, UNStudio
developed the Coolest White in collaboration with Monopol Colors, a fluoro-
polymer coating system with total solar reflectance and abrasion resistance
for building façades. Coolest White is designed for overheated urban envi-
ronments, mitigating urban heat island effects by reducing the temperature
inside and outside of buildings. This project is a good example of long-term
design value and solution developed in an evidence-based and planned pro-
cess of innovation with industry-partners that deals with a specific problem
of design that can be applied to general building conditions.
To summarise, output-driven architectural design research produces tan-
gible outcomes, usually following either an iterative and speculative or an
evidence-based and planned process. It often feeds directly into the creative
processes of design in architectural practice and is a form of research aimed
at immediate design innovation. Output-driven research can also include
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 667

Table 1. Summary of the process- and output-driven architectural design research

in practice.
Process-driven research Output-driven research
General focus (1) Experimentation on materials (1) Design outcomes
and prototypes
(2) Participatory design (2) Elements and material
(3) Quantitative research components studies
Examples of Foster þ Partners (Lunar Habitation and CSK Architects (Cork House)
practices/Projects Mars Habitat)
Sarah Wigglesworth Architects (DWELL) OMA/AMO (Seattle Public Library)
HTA Design (Home de Rijke Marsh Morgan
Performance Labelling) (Kingsdale School)
HLM Architects (Thoughtful UNStudio (Coolest White)
Design Toolkit)
Types of research Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Digital fabrication techniques used in
Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) non-standardised
Building Information Modelling (BIM) architectural components
Participatory design research Participatory design research
Experimentation with materials Experimentation with materials
and prototypes and prototypes
Construction and fabrication techniques
in design and building processes
Research features Planned research design and process Iterative or evidence-based
research process
Part of a larger collaboration Industry-partners
Robust and integrated documentation Singular solution
Produce transferable knowledge Difficult to differentiate from practice
and insights
Cyclical research process Feed the creative process of practice
Value is less certain Immediate impact,
directly measurable
Results might be not Tangible results
immediately tangible
Impact Short-term, mid-term, long-term, but potential for immediate impact.
Focus on social, environmental, and economic as well as ethical research problems
that conventional research often overlooks.
Audience Privileging of professionals, the public, policymakers over academia

participatory processes, therefore overlaps with established process-driven

research approaches in the social sciences. Output-driven research is transfer-
able beyond the initial project it was developed for. However, much of this
research remains tacit, usually for commercial reasons since the intellectual
property right can be a defining characteristic of its value (Rust, Mottram,
and Till 2007). One of its potential weaknesses is that it is sometimes difficult
to differentiate output-driven research from normal practice when formally
assessed against conventional research criteria.

Impact
Based on the above analysis of process- and output-driven architectural
design research, it is evident that predominantly different research processes
can be identified clearly as a rigorous research activity in the conventional
academic sense. Process-driven research tends to have planned and cyclical
and output-driven research iterative and emerging research processes. Yet,
there are important differences in the potential impacts produced by either
668 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

type of research (see Table 1). Since a shift in research assessment towards
impact over a decade ago, impact has become a core consideration of
funded research (UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) 2020). With professional
bodies and industry-oriented funding organisations considering research as
essential to the business of architecture, they have also made impact criteria
central to their work (RIBA 2017; Supplemental Charter of 1851). Both in aca-
demia and practice, impact and related communication requirements have
therefore become important to conducting architectural design research.
Impact is directly linked to the central question of practice, what value
architecture has to offer and—specifically in the context of architectural
design research—what kind of evidence exists to support its claims.
Increasingly, there is thus interest in understanding and expanding the
meaning and value of design research in the applied discipline of architec-
ture to its practices (Geiser 2008; Fraser 2013; RIBA 2014; Hensel and Nilsson
2019). For example, Leon Van Schaik (2019) claims that the continuums of a
successful design can only be integrated with practice through research.
Ranging from small to global firms and from commercial to speculative
research, almost all large architectural design and engineering firms such as
Arup, Gensler, Buro Happold, Foster and Partners, Zaha Hadid Architects,
OMA/AMO, Aedas and AKT maintain today research departments to remain
commercially competitive and create new knowledge for practice, but also
to contribute to larger disciplinary discourses. The cases discussed in this
study mainly relate to research in large firms, but the examples show that
smaller offices can equally drive design innovation and create new prece-
dents. This is now commonly measured in terms of impact.
Impact is fundamentally a form of research assessment and can be argued
in three ways: commercial, cultural, and social (Samuel 2020). Thus, the pro-
cess-driven and output-driven research classification discussed in this paper
might be better reframed now in relation to impact and its target audience.
First, architectural design research tackles technical, material and perform-
ance-related issues by employing design innovation with a value for practi-
tioners, which are evaluated against how evidence-based data can be
effectively used in future applications. Therefore, the key beneficiaries of this
type of research are practitioners. Second, both process-driven and output-
driven research projects in architecture can be seen as increasingly dealing
with issues beyond conventional academic research in architecture, such as
issues of social justice, climate change, and affordable housing, which have
great social, environmental, and economic values for the public. Therefore,
the impact can be both long term and short term and measured by their
relevance to issues of public concern. Third, architectural design research
may focus on external drivers such as supply lines and labour, which benefits
policymakers and the construction industry by supporting the
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 669

implementation of the Green New Deal or realising Just Cities. Thus, this
form of research often deals explicitly with increasingly imperative ethical
questions of practice that have a wider value for the general public. This
impact can be evaluated against the implementation of new policies and
public benefits. While policy-based and social research often have a mid-
term to long-term impact, technical, material, and performance-related proj-
ects tend to have shorter-term and immediate impacts. But architectural
design research undertaken in practice can have both immediate and long-
term benefits, and research projects can follow iterative and cyc-
lical processes.
Architectural design research projects generally have greater potential to
benefit wider audiences including professionals, the public, and policymakers
as well as academics. For instance, many of the new RIBA publications focus
on the value architecture brings to the users and stakeholders, including the
Social Value Toolkit (SVT) and Post Occupancy Evaluation. While the SVT pla-
ces emphasis on the social value of the product, the building, or the place
(Samuel 2020), POE highlights learning from both successes and failures to
address issues of quality, safety, and sustainability (Macdonald 2020), with
the RIBA recently demanding that POEs become mandatory for all publicly
funded projects. These shifts are increasingly integrating research activities
into everyday practice.

Conclusion
Conventional academic research tends to have homogenous characteristics,
for instance, audience and author usually belong to the same community of
researchers and there are established research practices. Particularly in archi-
tecture, architectural design research innovation has not formed an integral
part of its wider research culture. For example, evidence-based research in
the built environment has been largely carried out by other disciplines
(Samuel et al. 2015). Yet with an increasing recognition of the value of
research to architectural practice and the value of design to the economy
and public concerns, there is growing interest by, and support for, architec-
tural practitioners to undertake research.
Research in practice can challenge conventions of academic research and
affect how research is conducted as well as its research aims. For example,
while social sciences research typically anonymises qualitative data, identifying
participants and where they live is often essential to architectural design
research, especially when taking place in a specific place and involving co-
design. Applied research can directly connect ethical research and research
questions to concrete outcomes for practice and tangible values for users, for
670 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

example, when dealing with issues of sustainability, climate change, or social

justice, and enhance the impact achievable by architectural design research.
However, for a meaningful discussion to take place between practitioner
and academic research, better knowledge transfer between academia, prac-
tice, and architects is needed. As Samuel (2020) emphasised, solid, rigorous
research is not enough, but a rigorous, critical, and skilled architect can add
social, cultural, and commercial value to a project. There is a great need and
potential for significant impact from research in practice that is ethical, rigor-
ous, and evidence based.
A common key test of academic research is if it has a planned process. As
discussed, while both process- and output-driven research in architecture can
meet this criterion, it is less essential. Yet, as the analysis shows, process- and
output-driven research are often linked, with both typically having a research
process and design outcome, although different methods and processes char-
acterise various approaches. Research value and impact are thus less depend-
ent on the approach taken than the rigour with which it is implemented. In
fact, both approaches might exist in parallel and there are great opportunities
in combining their strengths to create more rigorous processes of design
innovation and design thinking with public impact and value.
While this study focused on the UK context, many of the observations and
insights are transferable. To conclude, the key potentials of architectural
design research and the actions that might enhance research practice can be
summarised as follows:

 It is often not fully planned, tends to be iterative, and enables design

experimentation or uses design innovation.

– Actions to enhance this potential might include setting clear overall

design aims and objectives, planning the analysis and evaluation
needed between iterative stages of research, and identifying and man-
aging project delivery risks early on.
 It can have an immediate impact that is directly measurable and tangible.
– To maximise the impact, there should be a planned pathway to impact
that can be further developed during the research process.
 It can include participatory processes and/or can directly engage with
public audiences as part of its research activities.
– Actions to improve research practice includes setting out clear aims and
selection criteria, developing ethical participation and engagement pro-
tocols, and ensuring that research ethics are complied with.
 It can have greater agency and impact dealing with ethical, social, eco-
nomic, or environmental issues than traditional academic research.
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 671

– Actions to enhance research practice and impact include pathway to

impact integration and impact prioritisation while giving consideration to
methodological appropriateness and robustness of research processes.

The study of processes and evaluation criteria of architectural design

research shows that it can have a strong social and economic value and can
enhance ethical and responsible research by giving it more immediate path-
ways to impact. Thus, the characteristics and potentials of architectural
design research can be restated as cyclical and iterative processes of research
in which the means of architectural practice, often in collaboration between
practitioners and stakeholders, produce design innovation and thinking with
tangible impact and commercial, cultural, or social values.
One strength of architectural design research is that it can often be tangibly
measured by users and the general public. For example, COVID-19 lockdowns
have made people aware of the value of well-designed homes, with the quality
and size of dwellings having had an immediate impact on the wellbeing and
health of occupants (NHF (National Housing Federation) 2020). The strength
and problems of that immediate impact of architectural design can be better
instrumentalised in evidence-based architectural design research.
While this paper has analysed the larger context, there continues to be a
critical lack of detailed studies on the value of experimentation and innov-
ation in architectural design research. A prominent characteristic of this type
of research is that it is iterative or cyclical and therefore has a circular rela-
tionship between research questions, process, and impact unlike many more
conventional forms of research. To fully understand architectural design
research and its strengths or weaknesses, it is essential to analyse how
design research might differ between diverse types and sizes of architectural
firms, including why emerging small architectural practices increasingly
engage with research and how this shapes their practice.

Notes
1. POE is usually associated with BPE and performed together. They ideally take place
one year after handover and the evaluation information is shared and made public
(Williams, Humphries, and Tait 2016). In an example of POE/BPE, HLM Architects
developed the Thoughtful Design Toolkit enabling designers and commissioning
clients to define, develop, and assess their building projects through evidence-based
data. This process is quantifiable, directly related to practice, and can be easily
documented. This type of research produces guidelines and databases and can
inform the briefing process. This creates a virtuous circle of information.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
672 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

Notes on contributors
Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir is an Assistant Professor of Architecture at MEF University, Turkey.
Previously, she was a Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher at the Royal College of Art. Her
research focuses on new pedagogies and new practices, design research, design-build stu-
dios, co-create and experimenting in architecture.
Sam Jacoby is Professor of Architectural and Urban Design Research and the Research
Leader of the School of Architecture at the Royal College of Art, responsible for School-
wide research strategy and management as well as the Laboratory for Design and
Machine Learning.

ORCID
Ayşe Zeynep Aydemir http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-4193
Sam Jacoby http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9133-5177

References
Archer, B. 1995. “The Nature of Research.” Co-Design Journal 2 (11): 6–13.
Biggs, M. A., and D. Bu €chler. 2007. “Rigor and Practice-Based Research.” Design Issues 23
(3): 62–69. doi:10.1162/desi.2007.23.3.62.
BIS: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2013. Construction 2025: Industrial
Strategy: Government and Industry in Partnership. London: Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills.
Collins, E. 2014. Architects and Research-Based Knowledge: A Literature Review. London:
Royal Institute of British Architects.
Coucill, L. S., and F. Samuel. 2013. Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice,
Methodology and Data. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
Craig, J. A., and M. Ozga-Lawn. 2015. “Emerging Practices in Design Research.”
Architectural Research Quarterly 19 (3): 202–203. doi:10.1017/S1359135515000597.
Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3 (4): 221–227. doi:10.1016/
0142-694X(82)90040-0.
Cross, N. 1999. “Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation.” Design Issues 15 (2): 5–10.
doi:10.2307/1511837.
De Graaf, R. 2016. “Ulterior Motives: OMA/AMO’s Reinier de Graaf on Research, Europe
and the 2014 Venice Biennale.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.archdaily.com/
789832/ulterior-motives-oma-amos-reinier-de-graaf-on-research-europe-and-the-2014-
venice-biennale.
Fraser, M. 2013. Design Research in Architecture: An Overview. London: Routledge.
Frayling, C. 1993. “Research in Art and Design.” Royal College of Art Research Papers 1 (1):
1–5.
Geiser, R. 2008. “Introduction.” In Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research,
edited by U. Staub and R. Geiser, 8–11. Basel: Birkh€auser.
Groat, L. N., and D. Wang. 2013. Architectural Research Methods. New Jersey: John Wiley
and Sons.
Hensel, M. U., and F. Nilsson. 2019. The Changing Shape of Architecture: Further Cases of
Integrating Research and Design in Practice. New York: Routledge.
Hill, J. 2003. “Introduction: Opposites That Overlap.” The Journal of Architecture 8 (2):
163–164. doi:10.1080/13602360309596.
 THE DESIGN JOURNAL 673

Hill, J. 2013. “Design Research: The First 500 Years.” In Design Research in Architecture: An
Overview, edited by M. Fraser, 15–34. London: Routledge.
Innovate UK. 2020. “Business Innovation: What Funding You Can Get and How to Apply.” Accessed
7 December 2020. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovation-apply-for-a-funding-award.
Janssens, N. 2012. “Utopia-Driven Projective Research.” PhD diss., Chalmers University.
Jenkins, P., L. Forsyth, and H. Smith. 2005. “Research in UK Architecture Schools - An
Institutional Perspective.” Architectural Research Quarterly 9 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1017/
S1359135505000060.
Joost, G., K. Bredies, M. Christensen, F. Conradi, and A. Unteidig. 2016. Design as Research:
Positions, Arguments, Perspectives. Basel: Birkh€auser.
Luck, R. 2018. “Participatory Design in Architectural Practice: Changing Practices in Future
Making in Uncertain Times.” Design Studies 59: 139–157. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.
Luck, R. 2019. “Design Research, Architectural Research, Architectural Design Research: An
Argument on Disciplinarity and Identity.” Design Studies 65: 152–166. doi:10.1016/j.des-
tud.2019.11.001.
Macdonald, P. 2020. RIBA Post Occupancy Evaluation: An Essential Tool to Improve the Built
Environment. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
NHF (National Housing Federation). 2020. Housing Issues during Lockdown: Health, Space
and Overcrowding (A Briefing on Research Supporting the Homes at the Heart Campaign).
London: National Housing Federation.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2015. “Frascati Manual
2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental
Development.” The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities.
Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264239012-en.
Park, A., F. Ziegler, and S. Wigglesworth. 2016. “Designing for Wellbeing in Environments
for Later Life (DWELL): Designing with Downsizers - The Next Generation of Downsizer
Homes for an Active Third Age.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.housinglin.
org.uk/_assets/DWELL_DesigningWithDownsizers.pdf.
REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2014. “Assessment Framework and Guidance on
Submissions.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/con-
tent/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%
20addendum.pdf.
REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2021. “Guidance on Submissions.” Accessed 7
December 2020. https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1092/ref-2019_01-guidance-on-submis-
sions.pdf.
Rendell, J. 2003. “Between Two.” The Journal of Architecture 8 (2): 221–238. doi:10.1080/
13602360309590.
Rendell, J. 2004. “Architectural Research and Disciplinarity.” Architectural Research Quarterly
8 (2): 141–147. doi:10.1017/S135913550400017X.
Rust, C., J. Mottram, and J. Till. 2007. AHRC Research Review: Practice-Led Research in Art,
Design and Architecture. London: Arts and Humanities Research Council.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). 2014. “How Architects Use Research: Case
Studies from Practice.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.architecture.com/-/
media/GatherContent/How-Architects-Use-Research/Additional-Documents/
HowArchitectsUseResearch2014pdf.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). 2016. “Advancing Architecture: The RIBA’s
Strategy 2016 to 2020.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.architecture.com//-/
media/0D57479F51D9440F8112D4CD733DB7B7.pdf?la=en.
674 A. Z. AYDEMIR AND S. JACOBY

RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). 2017. “President’s Awards for Research 2016:
Knowledge and Research in Practice.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://www.archi-
tecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/knowledge-and-research-in-practice/additional-
documents/knowledgeandresearchinpracticepdf.pdf.
Samuel, F. 2017. “Supporting Research in Practice.” The Journal of Architecture 22 (1): 4–10.
doi:10.1080/13602365.2017.1280288.
Samuel, F. 2020. RIBA Social Value Toolkit for Architecture. London: Royal Institute of British
Architects.
Samuel, F., N. Awan, C. Butterworth, S. Handler, and J. Lintonbon. 2015. Cultural Value of
Architecture in Homes and Neighbourhoods. Swindon: Arts and Humanities Research
Council.
Schumacher, P. 2002. “AADRL - From Education to Research.” Arch þ Magazine for
Architecture and Urbanism 163: 43–46.
Till, J. 2005. What is Architectural Research. Architectural Research: Three Myths and One
Model. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
UKRI (UK Research and Innovation). 2020. “Pathways to Impact: Impact Core to the UK
Research and Innovation Application Process.” Accessed 7 December 2020. https://
www.ukri.org/news/pathways-to-impact-impact-core-to-the-uk-research-and-innovation-
application-process/.
Van Schaik, L. 2019. “Spanning Continuums: Addressing the Separation of Research and
Practice in Architecture.” Architectural Design 89 (3): 38–47. doi:10.1002/ad.2433.
Vaughan, L. 2017. Practice-Based Design Research. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Williams, J., B. Humphries, and A. Tait. 2016. Post Occupancy Evaluation and Building
Performance Evaluation Primer. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
Wiszniewski, D., and C. French. 2019. “Introduction: Architecture Design Research.”
Drawing on: Journal of Architecture Research by Design 2019 (3): 1–10.