Design as Research: The Role of Argument in Design Projects That Represent Contributions to Architectural Knowledge

The paper focuses on the pedagogical challenges associated with architecturedesign studios in which design work is also expected to meet thestandards associated with postgraduate level research. The recent shift fromundergraduate to postgraduate status for professionally accredited architectureprograms in a number of countries, following the recommendations ofthe Bologna Accord, has seen universities require that these programs alsosatisfy the standards associated with Masters level research, and in somecases to require a major “design thesis” as the primary or sole componentof the final year.Specifically, the paper examines the role of evidence-based reasoning inpresenting both design processes and outcomes in the case of design thatis also expected to be a form of research, with the consequent focus ondemonstrating knowledge contributions. From this perspective, processesof explanation and argumentation are advanced as having particular significance,and these are examined in some detail. The paper addresses thequestion “what are the distinctive features of explanations that potentiallycontribute to knowledge development in architecture?” In this context thesignificance of the distinctions between interpretative, descriptive and reason-giving explanations are examined.The paper also draws on findings from studies in the interdisciplinary fieldof Learning Sciences and the empirical studies of Deanna Kuhn, in relationto the role of evidence in the construction of arguments, and the distinctionbetween genuine evidence and psuedo-evidence in this regard. Based oninformal observations by the author and teaching colleagues, it is suggestedthat deficits in thinking and reasoning processes found amongst collegestudents in Kuhn’s studies can also be observed in the explanations andarguments frequently offered by architecture students in support of theirdesign work.The paper then outlines a course of study developed by the author in orderto address these deficits, as an essential step in preparing students fordesign as research. Students are required to develop explanations of a selfselectedexample of built architecture and to use these as a basis for arguingfor a knowledge contribution for the chosen work. It is suggested thatwhen carefully framed, the requirement for students to analyze an existingwork of architecture work in this way fosters the development of intellectualskills that have direct relevance in their future design as research projects.The paper then reviews examples of student coursework and develops anoptimistic conclusion that the interrogation of an architectural work in termsof thinking processes that are at the heart of successful research is not inconsistentwith a focus on the intrinsic creativity and innovation of the work,and may offer a fuller account of such attributes.

Volume Editors
Martha Thorne & Xavier Costa

ISBN
978-0-935502-83-1