Fraser:

1. Fraser critiques the modes of research through design put forth by Le Corbusier’s idea of process as a spiral form and Donald Schon’s as a sequence of iterative loops. These modes, although based in design are still chronologically linear as opposed to the two-fold movement which alternates between past, present, and future.  How might a two-fold approach relate more clearly to the interdisciplinary nature of design research?
2. “Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors, with, as noted, these largely located within urban practices and processes.” Cultural and socio-economic factors are always shifting.  How can critical practice best address these shifts?
3. “But what architecture is certainly able to do is to examine, and experiment, with the conditions under which it is conceived and produced, which means that a very real task for design research is to act as a mechanism for a wider critique of architecture itself.” Is a two-fold approach more effective at this than other methods?

Rendell:

1. Rendell defines four critical research methodologies. Research in building science, social sciences and humanities in buildings, history and theory, and practice led research in architectural design. How can these be applied to Fraser’s analysis of historical and two-fold approaches?
2. There is a clear ascertain that muf does not identify as feminists yet they identify their work as furthering feminist architectural design. How do we clarify the distinction between design research and feminist design?  Is there a distinction?
3. Site-writing is defined as taking the location of the critic into consideration to condition their interpretative role. How do we navigate this condition in design research?